Cyclists 'urged to get insurance' by ABI

[Tonyf33]

So is this going to be the thin end of the wedge? Whilst there are plenty here who are CTC members with all the cover that that comes with, it's a very small % of cyclists across the UK who have insurance of some sort.
Will pressure from motor groups end up getting this lobbied for compulsion for cycles/cyclists as a whole, I can't see how it would work properly even if it did?

Tom Bognanowicz from the London Cycling Campaign appears to support the notion, rather than stating that cyclists can claim off the uninsured driver scheme run by the MIB he pretty much says that insurance is the only safeguard. The fact that a massive % of accidents are not the cyclists fault and even then damage caused by bikes are minimal for the most part to the 'other' vehicle
Could this in turn bolster the CTC numbers just for the insurance aspect?
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-15892074

[snibgo]

The Association of British Insurers think we should buy (more) insurance? Quelle surprise.

[eileithyia]

The Association of British Insurers think we should buy (more) insurance? Quelle surprise.

However the one incident of an uninsured cyclists I know of, left the car with a considerable hole and damage to the windscreen / front of the car. The cyclist happened to be on the wrong side of the road at the time, having tangled wheels with another cyclist.
He had just come out with a club for the first time and the club/committee were in danger of being sued, fortunately it was covered by BCF under the club rules of 3 rides before you join.

[hubgearfreak]

However the one incident of an uninsured cyclists I know of

that's in what, millions of uneventful journies?

perhaps the ABI would give me their advice on whether to get insurance to cover me for aliens or zombies too?

[thirdcrank]

In these litigious times, appropriate insurance can be invaluable if litigation looms, whether to make claims or defend them. The number of cyclists declaring that they are only in the CTC "for the insurance" tends to suggest that this is something plenty of riders recognise. As for the ABI, Mandy Rice-Davies would have had them sussed out.

======================================================================
Edited to add: "Thinks" Beyond the insurance included with membership of organisations like the CTC, what cycling insurance policies are available on the open market? Is this the opening free publicity shot in a marketing campaign for a new insurance "product."

[Moodyman1]

I think third party insurance is a necessary minimum for cycling commuters - especially if the commute involves an urban environment. Just think how much it would cost to respray an Audi door if you were to scrape it whilst filtering.

I'm not sure it's needed for leisure cyclists though. Trouble is, how would one differentiate between the two.

As the other poster said, anything that comes from a lobby group (ABI) needs to be taken with a pinch of salt.

[gaz]

The Motor Insurers' Bureau (MIB), which compensates people in accidents with uninsured drivers, estimates over 1.7m people drove without cover in 2008.

I've no doubt the ABI is urging them to get insurance as well, after all it is already legal requirement.

[PW]

Another exercise in victim blaiming, combined with an attempt to fleece the gullible.

[Grandad]

If we accept that not all cyclists are perfect and that we can all make the odd mistake on the road then there is always the risk that a cyclist will be held responsible for an accident.

It's OK to talk about the cost of respraying a car door but what if a careless manoeuvre forces a car to swerve and hit an oncoming one resulting in death or severe injuries to occupants of the cars?

Few cyclists would be able to meet the true cost of damages and there is no Motor Insurers Bureau type back-up for uninsured cyclists. This means no compensation for innocent victims - does this not impose a moral obligation on us to have Third Party insurance?

OK, it's a mimimal risk which is why both CTC and BC membership can include it within a modest membership fee. I believe that members of CTC affiliated clubs can get it for something like £1.

The marketing approach will probably be to include it with cover for the bike itself and of course that can be very expensive and so presumably profitable

[Mick F]

What about pedestrians?
Should they have insurance too?
What about a ped stepping out into the road and damaging a car? Or accidentally scraping one with a shopping bag? Or little children with bikes on the pavement?

If cyclists should have insurance, so should everyone.

[Phil_Lee]

It's OK to talk about the cost of respraying a car door but what if a careless manoeuvre forces a car to swerve and hit an oncoming one resulting in death or severe injuries to occupants of the cars?

Then since both cars are obliged to have insurance, it would be covered by that.
Whatever the cyclists behaviour, the accident couldn't have been as sever if it wasn't for the involvement of motor vehicles, which is why they are r3equired to be insured against third party risks arising from their presence on the highway.

What about pedestrians?
Should they have insurance too?
What about a ped stepping out into the road and damaging a car? Or accidentally scraping one with a shopping bag? Or little children with bikes on the pavement?

If cyclists should have insurance, so should everyone.

Quite.
Insurance is only necessary on motor vehicles because they pose an elevated risk to third parties.
Cycling does not.
In the range of things that can injure or kill an innocent bystander, a passing cyclist is so far down the scale that it isn't even possible to compile useful statistics.
You stand more chance of being struck by lightning, or drowning in a flash flood.
Maybe the Churches should be made to carry third party insurance for acts of god?
It's been suggested.

I was annoyed at the BBC carrying this obvious advertising campaign by the insurance industry, particularly when it is thinly disguised as informational.

[Grandad]

Then since both cars are obliged to have insurance, it would be covered by that.

If it is the cyclists carelessness that starts the sequence and neither motorist did anything wrong then the cyclist is responsible for all the consequences.

the accident couldn't have been as sever if it wasn't for the involvement of motor vehicles

So if a pedestrian steps off a pavement into the path of a cyclist........same logic?

Insurance is only necessary on motor vehicles because they pose an elevated risk to third parties.
Cycling does not.

Agreed cyclist do not pose an elevated risk but a risk does exist. The ratio is reflected in the premiums charged.

What about pedestrians?
Should they have insurance too?

Yes, which is why most Household policies include a Personal Liability (or some similar title) section covering the policyholder and members of the household against liabilities arising from non motor related careless acts, eg jaywalking, poking someones eye with an umbrella, pushing a pram to close to a car and scratchin g it (complicated if the car was parked partly on the pavement, but that's another topic)

[gilesjuk]

It's the start of bigger things. As soon as cyclists are forced to have insurance it will be registration next.

These things are being pushed by greedy lawyers and motorists lobby groups. It's nothing to do with road safety.

You've only got to look at student fees to see how they can grow from a small payment to a huge payment. While cycle insurance would start very low it would creep up.

[thirdcrank]

.... Insurance is only necessary on motor vehicles ...

Third party insurance is only compulsory on motor vehicles for those reasons. The value of insurance to the insured depends on whether they can stand the risk without insurance. The reason that house insurance includes certain third party risks is that for householders, the value of their home would make them attractive as the target of a claim - no point in suing somebody without the means to pay. Nowadays, more people have all sorts of forms of wealth they might like to protect. The potential for really serious injuries followed by a megabucks claim is greater with motor vehicles, but that doesn't mean that it doesn't exist lower down the food chain.

[gilesjuk]

The potential for really serious injuries followed by a megabucks claim is greater with motor vehicles, but that doesn't mean that it doesn't exist lower down the food chain.

Well, the passenger compensation isn't applicable since most bikes don't carry passengers.