Two thirds of people believe cyclists should be made to have insurance

Orbeaman wrote:

Would need to know the question asked.

"Should cyclists be required to have insurance against accidents?"

Hmm - that study seems.. problematic. They recognise that there are limitations with confounding factors and quality / availability of data, but also

Quote:

for a cycle-car collision injuring both a car occupant and cyclist, the injured cyclist is assigned to the car, and the car occupant to the cycle.

So if a speeding driver takes out someone on a bike, and kills themselves in the process, their death is effectively counted as a 'death by bicycle'.

As an aside, this is an odd leap, too:

Quote:

results suggest policy-makers should also seek to reduce disproportionate risks ... by discouraging motorcycling

[...]

we suggest that authorities should consider measures to reduce motorcycling

Why not first of all look at how motorcycling (and other more dangerous modes) can be made less dangerous? I would imagine that efforts to discourage or reduce motorcycling would be more likely to thin out those who currently use them more safely, with the perverse result that it becomes more dangerous on average.

I thought that was slightly strange too but I think it is so rare for a motorist to be killed in a collision with a cyclist that it is unlikely to affect the results greatly.

As to the motorcycle point, it actually does make sense to persuade people to move from a high risk to a low risk form of transport, the relative risk of motorcyclists might increase but the overall absolute risk would decrease.

But maybe it's only as high-risk as it is because it has an image that tends to attract people who take a lot of risks, or a culture that increases risk-taking. If your persuasion just results in people who generally ride carefully, and so don't pose much risk, giving it up, you haven't really achieved much. It might even enhance the view of it as an 'edgy, exciting' pursuit, and attract more risk-takers.

People speed in cars, but the answer to that is not to discourage people from using cars*, it's to discourage speeding. Or to take another tack, if you fell down the stairs while trying to walk down them in the dark, you wouldn't think that the answer was to discourage stair use - you'd probably first try turning the lights on next time.

In order to support a recommendation for discouraging motorcycling, you'd first need to demonstrate that the motorcycling in and of itself carried a higher risk, regardless of the behaviour of those doing it and the environment they're in.

[*even if you have other good reasons for doing that.]

I think that's a matter for debate.

Any person who is persuaded to move from a high risk form of transport to a lower risk form will lead to a reduction in the overall risk.

A safe and cautious motorcyclist is likely to be a safe and cautious cyclist but they now have less ability to kill someone by accident.

The answers aren't mutually exclusive however. We can encourage shifts from lorries to vans and from vans to cargo bikes whilst simultaneously making the remaining lorries and vans safer.

If motorbikes cause a disproportionate amount of harm as the statistics appear to suggest then measures to reduce their use can exist alongside measures to make their use safer.

Rich_cb wrote:

If motorbikes cause a disproportionate amount of harm as the statistics appear to suggest

But that's the thing - they don't. They suggest that the current use of motorbikes poses higher risk, but they can't make any determination whether it's something inherent in motorbikes per se that results in that risk, or whether it's something to do with way they're currently being used or the environment they're being used in. At most their prescription ought to be for further studies to determine what causes that level of risk, so that those factors can be tackled.

Essentially you're asking for a nearly impossible level of proof within the context of transport research.

It doesn't matter if it's the motorbike or the rider that creates the danger or, the far more likely scenario, a combination of both.

Discouraging use of motorbikes and making their use safer will create a net benefit regardless.

Rich_cb wrote:

Essentially you're asking for a nearly impossible level of proof within the context of transport research.

I'm really not, though. I'm just suggesting that some investigation could be done into more specific risk factors, to allow more targeted measures to be taken (maybe better enforcement against speeding and other traffic offences, tighter limitations on the specifications of bikes permitted on the roads, improved training and licensing regimes, public information campaigns targeting particularly risky behaviours...), rather than jumping straight to "OMGZ we must get these Killer Machines off our roads!!1!"

The report also identifies being male as being associated with a significantly higher risk to others, but it doesn't then suggest that 'authorities should take measures to discourage males from using the roads'.

Should all the kids riding bikes to school need insurance?

Ok wow, i found that oddly offensive, not sure why...lol. I've seen no one stating that 'I don't drive a car, so I'm above insurance'... why did you feel the need to add that little gem in there? 

For me, your argument sits in exactly the same camp as the call for mandatory helmet legislation. Yes, wearing a helmet makes a lot of sense in a lot of situations, and again is hardly a hardship... however, there is ultimately no fundamental need to wear one. There is no recognised problem with cyclists dying of avoidable head injuries. Yes, cyclists do die from head injuries, some of those could indeed be avoided by wearing a helmet, but the numbers are far too small to warrant legislation.

Same with insurance. It makes absolute sense to have insurance on the bike. I have it provided both through home contents and also my BC membership. However, there is no recognised problem with cyclists having accidents and causing damages that are beyond their financial means to compensate against. i.e. the number of people left significantly out of pocket due to the uninsured actions of cyclists is negligble. Therefore there is no need to legislate for mandatory insurance. 

This lack of fundamental need is demonstrated in the size of the insurance premium... You offer so much risk, that an insurer is willing to insure your cycling for £10 a year. 

Jimmy Ray Will wrote:

This lack of fundamental need is demonstrated in the size of the insurance premium... You offer so much risk, that an insurer is willing to insure your cycling for £10 a year. 

I was going to post something similar. My (inherited from my dad) 03 Berlingo is probably worth £250 quid to replace, yet my full insurance on 25 years of no claims is about £500 including liability, NCP and all the other extra gubbins and £250 excess. My house (also inherited) worth £190k is about £250 for building and contents cover with again £250 excess. The reason for the discrepency, apart from it being mandatory, is because a claim against the car is alot higher probablilty then a claim against my house.

My bike liability insurance is thrown in for "free" by BC membership of £40 per year. But if I insured mine and my mrs bikes (hers is an ebike) for £3.5k worth, it will cost £200 or so. Again the reason for the discrepency is because the odds on it being stolen and claimed against is probably more then the odds of me being in an accident where it is my fault. 

So I suppose it is really what do the people who state we need mandatory insurance think it entails? If the former then 90% of people are probably covered somehow anyway. If the latter, then the extra costs will disuade people to take on cycling. 

Jimmy Ray Will wrote:

Ok wow, i found that oddly offensive, not sure why...lol. I've seen no one stating that 'I don't drive a car, so I'm above insurance'... why did you feel the need to add that little gem in there? 

Apologies - certainly wasn't aiming to be offensive, and as I stated, I was more playing devils advocate rather than supporting one side or the other. That quip came partly from the, IMHO, very anti-car sentiment I find on road.cc. Lots of us love cycling, but don't live in a place where relying on public transport or cycling is feasible and thus occasionally need to use a car to go about our daily lives. I really get irked by the cyclist vs. motorist flame wars (on both sides) as I feel it's counterproductive and just leads to greater tension and divisions. But as you say, it was probably unneccessary. Retracted!

I guess the point I was trying to make was, in a world where the 'there must always be someone at fault' and no win no fee claim culture is sadly becoming more and more commonplace, is it really so outlandish to suggest we, as people using a form of moving transport on the roads, may need to be insured against someone suing us for scratching their wing mirror after close passing us etc. I appreciate I'm mixing up different types of insurance, especially the difference between covering loss to me and 3rd party liability. I was more pointing out that we cover ourselves against so many different risks in life, both big and small, covering ourselves while riding a bike isn't such a giant leap. 

I'm not a fan of blanket mandates either, the helmet example you give I completely understand. I generally always wear one, but it's nice not to be breaking the law when riding the bike around the block after making adjustments etc without one. 

In a perfect world, I'd love to see everyone free to ride bikes, without restrictions or requiring insurance and generally going about a healthier lifestyle. Everyone should have the opportunity to do so, and it would solve many issues with our cities and society. But as the culture changes in the society we live in, it's something I can see happening. 

People approach risk in many ways. They may decide to use insurance to exchange who accepts the risk or decide to accept the risk themselves or a combination (or as appears common, not even understand the risk). Alternatively, they may desist from the activity to avoid the risk altogether or undertake the activity in a controlled environment.

There's no problem with cyclists getting 3rd party insurance and as you say, it's pretty cheap. The big problem is the costs of administering it if it were to be made compulsory and I think it would act as a barrier to occasional cyclists (especially cycle hire schemes). More of an issue is that it doesn't solve any significant problem.

MoutonDeMontagne wrote:

whats the big problem in having insurance as a cyclist?

It's largely the 'as a cyclist' bit that's problematic. As things stand, you don't have to 'be a cyclist' to cycle. Once you put an administrative barrier in the way, so that people have to opt in to 'becoming a cyclist' by signing up to and paying for insurance, a chunk of people, particularly those who cycle occasionally, are likely to just think 'well I can't be bothered then'.

MoutonDeMontagne wrote:

We insure nearly everything else in our lives, so what's the problem with £10 a year for cycling?

You might insure everything else, but there are plenty of people out there on marginal incomes who don't. It might only be £10 a year, but if that comes round at a time when you're trying to decide between putting off paying the electric bill or the council tax, you're still not going to think this is a priority.

MoutonDeMontagne wrote:

As suggested above, just add it on to the cost of a bike.

This is a more reasonable approach, in that it reduces the barrier effect by making the levy more invisible. It could also be more progressive, particularly if done as a % of the price, since it would mostly fall on those buying bikes new, and particularly buying more than one bike or more expensive bikes.

But it's still not clear why cycling, as a low-risk activity, would be singled out. Would you also charge the levy on, say, skateboards or running shoes? (Or mobile phones, since they seen to pose a high risk factor for traffic collisions.)

A fairer proposal would be the one floated a few days back - of a generalised public liability insurance funded from the general tax pot.

MoutonDeMontagne wrote:

Those who were serious about cycling would get it.

But people shouldn't have to be 'serious' about cycling in order to cycle.

MoutonDeMontagne wrote:

Bet all of you insure your house contents and your holidays.

This is a bit beside the point, since it's conflating insuring against a direct risk of loss to you resulting from external circumstances, with insuring against the risk of harm or loss to others from your actions. You can mitigate the latter through your behaviour, but you can't do much about the former other than weigh up whether you feel the risk warrants the cost of insurance.

You are mixing up a lot of different types of insurance there which are used for different purposes and to insure rather different risks.

Your argument really boils down to everyone having compulsory third party liability solely due to being an adult.
There is a broadly similar scheme in NZ which also prevents you taking legal action against the offending party.
I would not oppose such a global scheme but I object to targeted schemes where there is little evidence of risk or adverse outcome where the risk results in an accident.

There are 22.6M homes and over 19M have contents insurance which would nearly always give third party liability. So over 80%

https://www.finder.com/uk/home-insurance-statistics#:~:text=The%20latest....

It's also provided to members of the London Cycling Campaign (in case other readers residing in the capital are reading this)