Cheaper insurance for 'cyclist-aware' motorists?

[661-Pete]

Just a proposal from the Gov. at the moment, but would this work?

How much of bad motorist/cyclist interactions are due to pure ignorance about the needs of cyclists and other vulnerable users? The sort of ignorance that could be educated out - after the manner of the much-vaunted 'driver awareness' courses?

I have long felt that testing of interactions with cyclists should be incorporated into the standard Driving Test.

As it happens, I've just switched my car insurance. My new insurers (a company that specialises in over-65s) quoted a premium just over half that of the previous ones. When I phoned the old insurers to tell them I wasn't renewing, they hurriedly dropped their premium by almost £100 - but it still wasn't enough. If this cyclist-awareness option ever comes about, I suppose I could sign on to it. After all, I do know a bit about cycling!

[Wanlock Dod]

Given that Cyclists Are Better Drivers Than Motorists this would seem to be a good idea.

[Psamathe]

Given the nature of Westminster I think it is all talk. How would the Government reduce car insurance premiums. Car insurance companies seek maximum profit and are going to ignore any request from the Gov. to reduce premiums for any group.

Government could reduce IPT on car insurance but it would become more complex as a policy might list more than one driver so who listed as a driver would need to have passed their cycle tests to get the premium reduction? And for many, would the actual saving in £ against the cost and time of doing a course persuade them to make the effort?

I'm in favour of making drivers more "cycle-aware" plus, for a %age, once they get on a bike, some will find it's fun and they will continue cycling. So in favour, but I've not seen any reports as to how the "cheaper insurance" would be implemented and to me that makes it little more than a sound bite.

Ian

[Cugel]

Given that Cyclists Are Better Drivers Than Motorists this would seem to be a good idea.

It'll only be a good idea if the education is practical - if motorists are required, for example, to ride a bike for half an hour through typical traffic, every day for a week. If it's all just some theory in a classroom, they'll forget it or ignore it 5 minutes after they leave the classroom. Experience is not just the best teacher but a necessary one.

In addition, many motorised drivers are not so much ignorant of cyclist perspectives and vulnerabilities so much as keen to exploit and amplify them. They close-pass because they wish to intimidate, punish, "make a point" or just have Toad-fun. No amount of "education" will change their nasty habits and predilections. They require application of a large and adamantine policeman, followed by exposure to a hanging judge (just a figure of speech - even I wouldn't hang them, although putting them in the stocks for small boys to throw rotten tomatoes at might be all right).

Cugel

[661-Pete]

Given that Cyclists Are Better Drivers Than Motorists this would seem to be a good idea.

Title of that article is meaningless. Surely every cyclist who takes the wheel of a motor vehicle is also a motorist? It should have read "Cyclists are better drivers than non-cyclists". But I agree with the findings in the article.

....to me that makes it little more than a sound bite.

That was my thought too. Nevertheless the idea ought to be floated around - it might be picked up on. I have managed to secure a lower premium for my car because the industry maybe now deems me a 'lower-risk' category - probably because of my age. Being able to prove that I am 'lower-risk' in other respects would be a benefit - to me if not to others!

Of course, if this ever happened, the worse drivers would be facing a hike in premiums, to compensate. Justified? No-one loves a bad driver...

[reohn2]

Given the nature of Westminster I think it is all talk..... ......... that makes it little more than a sound bite.

Ian

Yep,usual Westminster craptalk with little to no substance,what we've come to expect from an uncaring selfcentred government.

[thirdcrank]

From the government's perspective, media releases are inexpensive. Presumably motor insurance premiums benefit better drivers (better = those without a history of claims.)

Once upon a time, most people learning to drive were already quite experienced road users eg having cycled to school and often much further. There must be plenty on here who, as young people of limited means, went youth hostelling under their own steam as it used to say on the YHA card. It's that sort of experience that tends to make better road users in the longer term. Not any more.

[mjr]

Government could reduce IPT on car insurance but it would become more complex as a policy might list more than one driver so who listed as a driver would need to have passed their cycle tests to get the premium reduction?

All listed.

And for many, would the actual saving in £ against the cost and time of doing a course persuade them to make the effort?

It sounds like a one-off cost against an ongoing reduction, so I'd expect take-up to be at least as good as PassPlus's (£180 course for a short-term reduction at best) - but I can't find anything say how many people do PassPlus each year.

I'm surprised that Government is pushing this rather than the insurers, though. That makes me doubt it will happen.

[slowster]

I'm surprised that Government is pushing this rather than the insurers, though. That makes me doubt it will happen.

I'm not surprised. It's a typical government announcement that is intended to grab a good headline for a day, without involving any actual work, commitment or expenditure by the government. The special advisor who came up with this wheeze did not even bother to consult anyone in the insurance industry, because it was never a serious proposal in the first place. Just a bit of positive spin exploiting the fact that people generally don't like paying for insurance. From the BBC article:

A spokesperson for the Association of British Insurers says "We are unaware of this proposal. There have been no discussions between the ABI and the government on any proposals around motor insurance premiums and its bikeability scheme.

"Insurers support improved road safety, but in 2017 less than 0.1% of motor claims involved cyclists, so it is hard to see how this could have any meaningful impact on premiums."

[pete75]

Government could reduce IPT on car insurance but it would become more complex as a policy might list more than one driver so who listed as a driver would need to have passed their cycle tests to get the premium reduction?

All listed.

And for many, would the actual saving in £ against the cost and time of doing a course persuade them to make the effort?

It sounds like a one-off cost against an ongoing reduction, so I'd expect take-up to be at least as good as PassPlus's (£180 course for a short-term reduction at best) - but I can't find anything say how many people do PassPlus each year.

I'm surprised that Government is pushing this rather than the insurers, though. That makes me doubt it will happen.

My son did pass plus not long ago it's 50 quid not 180.

[thirdcrank]

" ... in 2017 less than 0.1% of motor claims involved cyclists, ...

This is what I was hinting at when I wrote better = those without a history of claims.

If the aim is to encourage cyclists, it's not just a matter of reducing insurance claims but making road conditions less hostile. Near misses don't = good drivers.

[Wanlock Dod]

"Insurers support improved road safety, but in 2017 less than 0.1% of motor claims involved cyclists, so it is hard to see how this could have any meaningful impact on premiums."

Yet despite that

Nick Day of Chris Knott Insurance said an analysis of his firm's crash data showed that cyclists make less than half the number of insurance claims as non-cyclists.
13% of the firm’s insured drivers make at least one claim per year, found Day, but this fell to 6% for cyclists who were insured on the firm’s cyclist-driver policy.

[djrikki]

In the very short-term if it gets the general populace talking and considering their own actions the next time they start their engines then this can be seen as a small positive step in the right direction.

Offering cycling education instead of handing points on your licence - I believe that would have greater effect if the cycling education involved physically riding a bike on the road for a couple of hours.

[kwackers]

Yet despite that

Nick Day of Chris Knott Insurance said an analysis of his firm's crash data showed that cyclists make less than half the number of insurance claims as non-cyclists.
13% of the firm’s insured drivers make at least one claim per year, found Day, but this fell to 6% for cyclists who were insured on the firm’s cyclist-driver policy.

Wow!
I should get practically free insurance. I think I've claimed twice in over 40 years of motoring despite most of that with two cars and a variable number of motorbikes. (And I've never claimed at all on my house insurance).
And those claims were for a set of alloys that got nicked and the other for when some scally decided to dance on the roof of my car rather than any sort of 3rd party claim.

(I have claimed twice on other peoples insurance, both on motorbikes and both when they pulled out on me).

[MikeF]

I've been cycling since I learnt to ride a bike aged 7??. Compared with many on this forum my cycling is quite modest, but although I don't always ride on roads I do ride in towns and some A roads. However I've never passed a cycling proficiency test or bikeability, so what proof have I that I'm a "cyclist"?