Cycling UK Forum

KTM690 wrote: I percieve them as very soft and squidgy and erratic with the potential to massively increase my insurance premiums and put undeserved points on my licence. In short they're a threat and best avoided and overtaken at the earliest SAFE opportunity.

i've added a word for you that you missed. perhaps you meant to miss it?

hubgearfreak wrote:

KTM690 wrote: I percieve them as very soft and squidgy and erratic with the potential to massively increase my insurance premiums and put undeserved points on my licence. In short they're a threat and best avoided and overtaken at the earliest SAFE opportunity.

i've added a word for you that you missed. perhaps you meant to miss it?

Not at all, re read post and note "best avoided"

According to the Association of British Insurers (ABI), more households have contents insurance than motor insurance. http://www.abi.org.uk/Facts_and_Figures ... gures.aspx

DfT says that there are no definite numbers, but estimate 5% drive without any insurance at all. http://www.dft.gov.uk/pgr/roads/miud/un ... ukb?page=4

ABI estimates that many more drive illegally by providing false information which invalidates their policies. The most common is insuring a car for the incorrect 'main driver'. ABI states that many people (53%) feel it is legitimate to save money by insuring a car with an older, less risky driver listed as the main driver, when in fact, the main driver is a young person listed as 'an occasional driver'.

Estimates also vary about the number of uninsured households (contents), but it appears to be somewhere between 18 and 25%.

In other words, there is no way to tell how the number of uninsured (or fraudulently insured) motorists compares to the number of uninsured cyclists.

Vorpal wrote:According to the Association of British Insurers (ABI), more households have contents insurance than motor insurance. http://www.abi.org.uk/Facts_and_Figures ... gures.aspx

DfT says that there are no definite numbers, but estimate 5% drive without any insurance at all. http://www.dft.gov.uk/pgr/roads/miud/un ... ukb?page=4

ABI estimates that many more drive illegally by providing false information which invalidates their policies. The most common is insuring a car for the incorrect 'main driver'. ABI states that many people (53%) feel it is legitimate to save money by insuring a car with an older, less risky driver listed as the main driver, when in fact, the main driver is a young person listed as 'an occasional driver'.

Estimates also vary about the number of uninsured households (contents), but it appears to be somewhere between 18 and 25%.

In other words, there is no way to tell how the number of uninsured (or fraudulently insured) motorists compares to the number of uninsured cyclists.

Just goes to show how much people depend on their cars

Vorpal wrote: number of uninsured cyclists.

I think "self insured" is a better term.

You don't need insurance on a bicycle for the same reason you don't need it walking down a road, because the chances of you doing an amount of damage large enough to bankrupt you whilst financially crippling the 3rd party is near zero.
Obviously that doesn't preclude it from happening, but chances are the worst case is you could be stung for some repainting or a set of lights.
OTOH, in a ton and half of metal travelling at fair speeds within inches of vulnerable people and their property, it's massively more likely that you could do enough damage to be financially crippling to both parties - hence the compulsory insurance.

So not having insurance doesn't mean you have no responsibility - even as a pedestrian. It simply means that you've chosen to cover any damage from your own pocket.

In the real world what usually happens is the 3rd party pockets the losses themselves since they tend to be small and the hassle of getting the cash isn't worth it - but this frequently happens with insurance anyway, the whole point of the excess is to discourage using it for the majority of claims.

KTM690 wrote:Just goes to show how much people depend on their cars

They're going to have to figure out how not to depend on them. Growing mobility in other countries means the cost of operating them is going to push the price of fuel to a level people are no longer going to be prepared to pay.
We're going to see some major social restructuring as people start to try to live near where the work is.

Besides fuel is best kept for stuff that genuinely needs it. Like tractors, combine harvesters, JCB's etc rather than wasted on allowing middle England to indulge themselves in conspicuous consumption and waste.

I wasn't arguing one way or the other that cyclists or motorists should or shouldn't be insured. In fact, I tend to agree with Kwackers. I was just carrying on from the point that most cyclists are, actually, insured.

Hi there, The major point about drivers arrogance with regards to soft targets, is that they assume some sort of divine right to bully others! They expect the soft target to get out of their way PDQ. When, as inevitable at sometime, they hit said ST they scream "Why didn't you get out of my way"? Doh. Had they sped round a blind corner, only to hit a large immovable object (Fell of the back of a lorry?) they would again cry foul! Is this a form of "Dumb Insolence"? Or just typical pig headed stupidity? The fact that motorized traffic has no legal "Right" to use the roads, merely conditional licence, quite escapes their limitted powers of reasoning! Parp, Parp, Just of to stay with the idiot at Toad Hall. TTFN MM

Vorpal wrote:According to the Association of British Insurers (ABI), more households have contents insurance than motor insurance. http://www.abi.org.uk/Facts_and_Figures ... gures.aspx

DfT says that there are no definite numbers, but estimate 5% drive without any insurance at all. http://www.dft.gov.uk/pgr/roads/miud/un ... ukb?page=4

ABI estimates that many more drive illegally by providing false information which invalidates their policies. The most common is insuring a car for the incorrect 'main driver'. ABI states that many people (53%) feel it is legitimate to save money by insuring a car with an older, less risky driver listed as the main driver, when in fact, the main driver is a young person listed as 'an occasional driver'.

Estimates also vary about the number of uninsured households (contents), but it appears to be somewhere between 18 and 25%.

In other words, there is no way to tell how the number of uninsured (or fraudulently insured) motorists compares to the number of uninsured cyclists.

I am suspicious of this. I think that includes an enormous number of rented properties where the insurance will not cover the occupants just the owner, as being insured.

mersey mouth wrote:The major point about drivers arrogance with regards to soft targets, is that they assume some sort of divine right to bully others! They expect the soft target to get out of their way PDQ. When, as inevitable at sometime, they hit said ST they scream "Why didn't you get out of my way"? Doh. Had they sped round a blind corner, only to hit a large immovable object (Fell of the back of a lorry?) they would again cry foul! Is this a form of "Dumb Insolence"? Or just typical pig headed stupidity? The fact that motorized traffic has no legal "Right" to use the roads, merely conditional licence, quite escapes their limitted powers of reasoning! Parp, Parp, Just of to stay with the idiot at Toad Hall. TTFN MM

I wouldn't go quite that far. That may be true of a tiny minority of motorists, but for the majority it is more likely a lack of thought, other than the "what's for tea? - I'm looking forward to Corrie tonight - must remember to ring Grandma on Saturday - oooh, did I just hit something?" kind of thoughts.

The ABI (cited above) list contents and buildings insurance separately. Other sites I looked at didn't specify, or put it as 'households' rather than listing the type of insurance.

I was more concerned about who is the beneficiary of the insurance.

I assume landlords will cover their furnishings because as a tenant I never did.
They do not however cover the tenant's third party liabilities.

There are a lot of tenants in this country.

hubgearfreak wrote:

KTM690 wrote: I percieve them as very soft and squidgy and erratic with the potential to massively increase my insurance premiums and put undeserved points on my licence. In short they're a threat and best avoided and overtaken at the earliest SAFE opportunity.

i've added a word for you that you missed. perhaps you meant to miss it?

Surely you only get points on your licence in an encounter with a cyclist if you are found to be in the wrong- ie. driving badly?

meic wrote:I was more concerned about who is the beneficiary of the insurance.

I assume landlords will cover their furnishings because as a tenant I never did.
They do not however cover the tenant's third party liabilities.

There are a lot of tenants in this country.

I don't know how that falls out, and I haven't been able to find any information associated with it.