Cycling UK Forum

PH wrote: ↑17 Sep 2023, 5:22pmThere are lots of scenarios as we go through life where we could potentially be liable for some claim, where we could possibly have caused damage to some individual or their property. So maybe it would be a good idea to have a general PL policy. Many of us have, they come bundled with various other things, enhanced bank accounts, union membership, household insurance. That they're a free add on indicates, as drossall points out, the likelihood of them being called upon.

Indeed. Mandatory bike insurance would be fundamentally daft for these reasons. If you think like this, better to consider mandatory general personal insurance, including bikes (but not cars, which pose far more risk as discussed), for all citizens. Personally I don't.

I've always thought, in fact, that were all cyclists to have insurance and know it, motorists' premiums would go up. Not only are you more likely to claim against me if you know that I have insurance, as you suggest; I'm more likely to claim against you if I have insurance, because I have support on hand. Also, my insurers will want to know about claims in case those insurers may incur a liability. So I'll have the support to pursue a claim, and insurers who want me to hand it over to them to minimise any potential liability against them.

Given that personal injury tends to be the larger part of road claims, and that injury to cyclists is likely and to motorists highly improbable (in car-bike collisions), you can see where this is all going.

I think I've got 4 or 5 "bike" insurances.

Through my British Cycling membership (that's third party liability to £20m and personal accident insurance).
Through my cycle club membership (I'd have to look at the T&Cs of that but I know it also includes "recovery insurance" to get me home if I have a non-repairable mechanical)
Through my existing home insurance (I suspect that's various bits of liability, again would have to look at T&Cs).

As to whether any of that should be compulsory. No.
Insurance is designed to cover to the costs which an individual would find difficult or impossible. Since cars are very big and heavy and can do a lot of damage in a very short time, it's logical that they should have insurance to pay the bills when the driver goes through the front of a house or writes off someone else's £40,000 car - those are not the sort of costs most people can find in loose change!
If I hit someone or something on my bike, chances are the damages are going to amount to a bit of scuffed paint or a slight dent in a fence panel. Not exactly "break the bank" stuff...[

Pinhead wrote: ↑16 Sep 2023, 1:10pm I have sued ELEVEN companies and three people over the years, County and Small claims including Samsung UK and won every time

Wow! Ummm... genuine question. Why?

rareposter wrote: ↑18 Sep 2023, 9:41am If I hit someone or something on my bike, chances are the damages are going to amount to a bit of scuffed paint or a slight dent in a fence panel. Not exactly "break the bank" stuff...

Chances are that scenario is never going to occur, yet someone at BC thinks the appropriate cover is £20 million.
There was a case in Scotland some years ago when one cyclist attempted to sue another over an accident while riding in a group. The injuries were life changing for the injured cyclist, the claim for a considerable amount. The court's decision was to reject the claim, something along the lines of them assuming a shared risk by riding in a group. However, just the cost of defending yourself against such a claim could be bank breaking.
It is a tough one, the likelihood is low but the potential loss is large. I don't insure myself against being hit by lightening, which probably has the same odds as a substantial claim, the difference is the potential loser would be a third party.

PH wrote: ↑18 Sep 2023, 10:35am Chances are that scenario is never going to occur, yet someone at BC thinks the appropriate cover is £20 million.
There was a case in Scotland some years ago when one cyclist attempted to sue another over an accident while riding in a group. The injuries were life changing for the injured cyclist, the claim for a considerable amount. The court's decision was to reject the claim, something along the lines of them assuming a shared risk by riding in a group. However, just the cost of defending yourself against such a claim could be bank breaking.

I *think* (although I'm happy to be corrected) that was the main point of the £20m sum. It was something to do with the sheer legal costs of trying to prove fault. Group riding scenarios are a nightmare for that - as with aircraft crashes it's rarely just one thing, it's a chain of things. Rider A swerves to avoid a pothole, Rider B brakes to avoid Rider A's swerve, Rider C pulls out the line to avoid the back of Rider B...... and way down the line, Rider H gets taken out. Who is to blame?! Good luck proving any of that...

Part of the reason why BC doesn't cover member-on-member claims because every crash in a road or circuit race would be like that!

PH wrote: ↑18 Sep 2023, 10:35am ...
There was a case in Scotland some years ago when one cyclist attempted to sue another over an accident while riding in a group. The injuries were life changing for the injured cyclist, the claim for a considerable amount. The court's decision was to reject the claim, something along the lines of them assuming a shared risk by riding in a group. However, just the cost of defending yourself against such a claim could be bank breaking.
...

Can you remember any more details, please?

Some recent Scottish cases:
https://www.lawscot.org.uk/members/jour ... destrians/
https://www.morton-fraser.com/insights/ ... MTMlN0Q%3D
https://www.cyclelawscotland.co.uk/caselaws/

Jonathan

Given that it is likely many cyclists actually have 3rd party insurance cover (my various hoiuse policies have included this, CTC/BC membership?, etc.), how would such a requirement be enforced?

Given that a police office will currently ignore drivers using their mobile, would OP propose mass "stop and check" cyclists e.g. Police stand and pull-in every passing cyclist and require them to present their insurance details. Would this be better use of police time than speed checks or pursuing mobile phone drivers, etc.

Ian

Jdsk wrote: ↑18 Sep 2023, 11:07am

PH wrote: ↑18 Sep 2023, 10:35am ...
There was a case in Scotland some years ago when one cyclist attempted to sue another over an accident while riding in a group. The injuries were life changing for the injured cyclist, the claim for a considerable amount. The court's decision was to reject the claim, something along the lines of them assuming a shared risk by riding in a group. However, just the cost of defending yourself against such a claim could be bank breaking.
...

Can you remember any more details, please?

Sounds like this one:

https://www.scotsman.com/news/crash-cyc ... ed-2513487

I vaguely remember some of it because various cycle clubs were getting interested in the potential outcome. The case (quite rightly IMO) got rejected. To me, it read a bit like a chancer seeing one of those "no win no fee" or "have YOU had an accident that wasn't your fault?" adverts...

Thankyou

Jonathan

Psamathe wrote: ↑18 Sep 2023, 11:47am Given that it is likely many cyclists actually have 3rd party insurance cover (my various hoiuse policies have included this, CTC/BC membership?, etc.), how would such a requirement be enforced?

Given that a police office will currently ignore drivers using their mobile, would OP propose mass "stop and check" cyclists e.g. Police stand and pull-in every passing cyclist and require them to present their insurance details. Would this be better use of police time than speed checks or pursuing mobile phone drivers, etc.

Ian

Indeed, it is a complete non starter - and at what age would insurance be required, a four year old on a 3 wheel pedal tractor ?

The greater good is to get more people cycling and burdensome regulation is not going to help

rareposter wrote: ↑18 Sep 2023, 12:03pm

Jdsk wrote: ↑18 Sep 2023, 11:07am

PH wrote: ↑18 Sep 2023, 10:35am ...
There was a case in Scotland some years ago when one cyclist attempted to sue another over an accident while riding in a group. The injuries were life changing for the injured cyclist, the claim for a considerable amount. The court's decision was to reject the claim, something along the lines of them assuming a shared risk by riding in a group. However, just the cost of defending yourself against such a claim could be bank breaking.
...

Can you remember any more details, please?

Sounds like this one:

https://www.scotsman.com/news/crash-cyc ... ed-2513487

Thanks for that, saves me Googling. So it was counsel that made the comment and the jury that agreed. I thought it was a judge's comment, so not quite how I remembered it but for the purpose of this discussion on PL insurance the same outcome.

I vaguely remember some of it because various cycle clubs were getting interested in the potential outcome. The case (quite rightly IMO) got rejected. To me, it read a bit like a chancer seeing one of those "no win no fee" or "have YOU had an accident that wasn't your fault?" adverts...

I'm not sure if it was this or another case, but I remember reading about some such claim where one cyclist was suing another at the insistence of their insurer. I don't know how that works in law, something like your insurer can withhold payment unless you take steps to peruse other parties who might be liable. Maybe?

cycle tramp wrote: ↑17 Sep 2023, 5:53pm Missing: my will to live... last seen somewhere on this forum. Its furry and multicoloured. If anyone has seen it, please let me know through the usual channels.

Was it insured against loss?

Please note that gaz is not FCA regulated and cannot assess individual needs for insurance. You will not receive advice or recommendations from gaz about them. Your cycle may be at risk if you leave it gold standard locked in the secure cycle parking area. Posted on a forum that contains track nuts and cannot be guaranteed track nut free. Hand wash only. Do not iron.

[/quote]

You need to ride with disabled / autistic people, and you will SEE the potential for a collision with people or pedestrians this also applies to ANY who post here who say accidents are unlikely

[/quote]

Perhaps it should be compulsory for the group you have decide to single out, then?