- 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
Marble Arch cycle lane (copyright Simon MacMichael)Two thirds of people believe cyclists should be made to have insurance
Almost two thirds of people believe cyclists should be required to have third-party liability insurance, according to a new survey.
Unsurprisingly, the sentiment is much stronger among motorists, 68 per cent of whom told YouGov that they support the idea, than it is among commuting cyclists, just 33 per cent of whom agreed, reports the local news website, swlondoner.co.uk.
Across the sample as a whole, 64 per cent said that cover should be compulsory, while occasional cyclists – those who ride at least once a month – were split down the middle, with 42 per cent in favour and 41 per cent opposed.
Tim Lennon, borough co-ordinator at the Richmond Cycling Campaign, told the website: “It would just be another barrier to people getting on a bike, and since cycling is really no more dangerous than walking, it would simply be a way to discourage cycling.”
Among motorists, only 18 per cent thought that it was a bad idea to make insurance mandatory for cyclists, versus 50 per cent of cycle commuters.
Leaving aside the issue that users of mechanically-propelled vehicles are required to take out third party insurance by law because of their propensity to do harm to others, the survey reflects the widely-held fallacy that cyclists are not covered for their potential legal liability to third parties.
Most bike riders, of course, are insured for that risk – whether through bespoke cycle insurance, their membership of British Cycling or affiliated clubs or organisations such as Cycling UK, or through their own household insurance.
And users of hire schemes such as London’s Santander Cycles are also automatically covered when they take one of their bikes.
The perception, however, that we are not will doubtless remain another stick for many motorists to beat us with.
Simon joined road.cc as news editor in 2009 and is now the site’s community editor, acting as a link between the team producing the content and our readers. A law and languages graduate, published translator and former retail analyst, he has reported on issues as diverse as cycling-related court cases, anti-doping investigations, the latest developments in the bike industry and the sport’s biggest races. Now back in London full-time after 15 years living in Oxford and Cambridge, he loves cycling along the Thames but misses having his former riding buddy, Elodie the miniature schnauzer, in the basket in front of him.
Latest Comments
- Eton Rifle 27 min 9 sec ago
Well, yeah. I can imagine that linking your product in any way to the Cybertruck, the most ridiculed product in recent history, isn't a PR victory,...
- Rendel Harris 34 min 7 sec ago
Thank goodness for that. I don't suppose anyone would want you to. You certainly behave like one though.
- Eton Rifle 41 min 49 sec ago
You do see some utterly ridiculous examples of car use....
- Eton Rifle 1 hour 4 min ago
Exactly. Every road death is a tragedy but this is at the "twat deserved it" end of the spectrum, looking at the state of that car.
- Rendel Harris 1 hour 11 min ago
I'm not the editor of this article, nor indeed of anything on this website. One would have thought that didn't require explaining.
- Eton Rifle 1 hour 12 min ago
I think the answer is in your question. I genuinely didn't know he was married to her. It does kinda explain it. Disappointing, nevertheless.
- Daclu Trelub 5 hours 57 min ago
In a perfect world, we'd have a measure of how easily distracted someone is, as part of their driving test....
- Sredlums 6 hours 24 min ago
These products are nothing but ridiculously expensive and superfluous, and they bring nothing but bragging rights....
- Daclu Trelub 6 hours 43 min ago
Of course they are, and not so different. https://www.amazon.co.uk/dp/B09B662CDN?crid=34M42BETAMFT0&th=1 The bugger's got four versions up now!
Add new comment
47 comments
Are you sure about that?
I have been a member of British Cycling for about 8 years, but I doubt many, if any of my friends know that. My wife probably doesn't even remember.
So 2/3's of people are really stupid? Seems about right.
I wonder if Yougov gave them the facts about cycling and the risk of causing harm before asking whether cyclists should have insurance, or were they just relying on years of anti-cycling media portraying them as lycra louts, killing everything in their path?
This would be the first step on the path to having to pay an insurance company for permission to leave your front door. That may sound like taking it the extreme, but there are probably already countless lawsuits filed in the US by people claiming someone gave them Covid.
It is depressing, but not surprising, that so many people clearly answered this question without thinking about the implications. Fortunately, majorities on single issues do not mattter unless a small group, which is close to power but not actually at its centre, adopts it and uses the millions of morons who believe in it as a lever to supplant those in their way. And cyclist hatred in this country is a convenient distraction, not something seen as important enough to use in this manner.
Like another opinion poll back in 2016
Sort out the uninsured drivers first. Years ago my car was hit by an uninsured driver and it cost me loads. Once you've sorted the uninsured drivers, then sort the untaxed, then the ones with no MOT, then the ones with no licence. Only then think of insurance for cyclists
I wonder what the YouGov survey asked about uninsured drivers and what percentage of people wanted that sorted.........
There will be more uninsured motorists on the road at any time than total numbers of cyclists.
The same will be true for those without VED, perhaps current MOT.
Maybe even cloned plates.
But cyclists...
They really do hate our freedom, don't they.
I reckon there are probably more insured cyclists, as a proportion (even including those who don't even know) than there would be of motorists if it were not a legal requirement for driving.
But cyclists...
The 68% like the idea, as a way of punishing people who ride bikes.
It would be interesting to know from the Boris Bikes scheme insurance how often claims are paid out, and how much is just profit to the insurance industry.
I don't think there are enough barriers to cycling.
Without a registration scheme it is pointless (well, pointless anyway) and who is going to pay the £Bns for that ?
Here's an idea - focus on people like this
https://www.bristolpost.co.uk/news/bristol-news/man-wrote-rental-bmw-wor...
Without a registration scheme it is pointless
Very good point. The sentencing for your Bristol crazed driver seemed reasonable, until it came to the insufficient driving ban.
It's a freebie on your home contents Insurance, with at least £2 million cover.
i bet there are fewer uninsured cyclists than there are motorists. The current estimate for uninsured motorists in 1.5 million.
i see this line used a lot, but it can't be universally true, otherwise why did Robert Hazledean have a problem. There is no reason for cyclists not to get insured, the damage we can do to property is generally managable, but the costs of personell injury can be significant. Not worth the risk for £25 a year
Robert Hazeldean had a problem because he didn't get legal representation in time and thought he'd do it himself.
But did he or did he not have 3rd party liability insurance? Because the reports say if he had, costs would have been limited to £7000.
If he had cover, then the insurance would have organised the legal team in the beginning, or possibly just paid out as it was cheaper
Leaving aside the issue that it is absurd for 60,000 to be spent in legal fees over a compensation payment of less than a tenth of that.
Or he had cover but didn't realise to use it. However because he never "countersued" his costs went up and then because he never got legal council, he probabaly wasn't covered under his insurance then.
We are talking about the same group of people who believe they still pay a "Road tax" abolished 83 years ago in an attempt to stop drivers feeling that they "Owned the road" . . you know that thing they accuse cyclists of believing because we'd like them to share it in a less dangerous manner....
Pages