Cycling UK Forum

It might well be being pushed by greedy insurance companies and lawyers, but I certainly breathed a sigh of relief and a prayer that I was a member of CTC when a certain taxi driver tried to claim I had gone thru a red light, suddenly I was facing the very real probability that I could be sued for damage to the vehicle.
Luckily it was accepted that I had gone thru on green.

OK, I admit it : I am in the CTC to get their third party insurance.

TBH I am not hugely concerned about scratching someone else's car (though I will obviously try to avoid it). OTOH I would be seriously concerned about the possible consequences of momentary careless inattention causing any kind of accident while out cycling that might kill someone, put them permanently in a wheelchair or otherwise cause one of a catalogue of possible horrors and have to live with that knowledge for the rest of my life. Third party insurance, for the financial aspect at least, seems like a good thing.

Where a cyclist's action causes an accident between two other vehicles, my understanding is that, while the respective motorists' insurance policies might cover mutual damage, you can bet your savings on it that one or both insurance companies will come after the cyclist for reimbursement (subrogation, I believe it is called).

If said careless cyclist is, phew, insured, then maybe, just maybe he will not be too much out of pocket.

As a corollary to the above, my further understanding is that one cannot insure oneself against the consequences of one's own illegal act. If this be the case then one's own insurers might not look too kindly on paying out for an accident caused by a cyclist jumping a red light or riding on the pavement. Just a thought for those accustomed to doing this .

chrisc wrote:As a corollary to the above, my further understanding is that one cannot insure oneself against the consequences of one's own illegal act.

That is a moral point worth considering, but I somehow don't think it really exists in practice.

Many a car has claimed insurance monies after an accident - how many of them were speeding? Do insurance companies refuse to pay out if a driver was speeding? or the car has a bald tyre? These things are prosecuted by the boys in blue, but the insurance companies still pay out.

If I write our car off due to my stupidity with law breaking, my insurance will still pay out the market value of my car.

"Not having a comprehensive insurance policy could prove costly, cyclists have been warned by the Association of British Insurers (ABI)."

Not all motorists have comprehensive cover, what about them?

What extra does third party insurance give over a household insurance personal liability cover?

Mick F wrote:

chrisc wrote:As a corollary to the above, my further understanding is that one cannot insure oneself against the consequences of one's own illegal act.

That is a moral point worth considering, but I somehow don't think it really exists in practice.

I think I have read that it is possible to insure against losing ones licence.

What next - "Cyclists urged to buy meat" by the association of British butchers......

"Not having a comprehensive insurance policy could prove costly, cyclists have been warned by the Association of British Insurers (ABI)."

Motorists seem to me to overemphasise the worth of insurance. It can only pick up some of the pieces. When it is metal at risk this may be OK. Flesh and blood, pain and injury are not so easy to put right. We are well aware of this, so take more care than motorists.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/lifeandstyle/ ... ents-study



"A tiny proportion of accidents involving cyclists are caused by riders jumping red lights or stop signs, or failing to wear high-visibility clothing and use lights, a government-commissioned study has discovered.

The study, carried out for the Department for Transport, found that in 2% of cases where cyclists were seriously injured in collisions with other road users police said that the rider disobeying a stop sign or traffic light was a likely contributing factor. Wearing dark clothing at night was seen as a potential cause in about 2.5% of cases, and failure to use lights was mentioned 2% of the time.

With adult cyclists, police found the driver solely responsible in about 60%-75% of all cases, and riders solely at fault 17%-25% of the time."

We have a stronger incentive to avoid collisions than drivers do. I think insurance can make drivers less careful. They will not have to pay with all their assets. The car will be sorted out by insurance. They may not even be off the road for a day.

Insurance is really for drivers, not us. Is there really a problem with uninsured cyclists unable to compensate for the damage they do? I've never heard of it. Being able to do damage to others, and easily pay for it, is a motorists' preoccupation. Its a motorists' problem, and insurance is a motorists' solution.

But as previously pointed out ..here we are ..CTC members with our charity insurance....... so when the ABI use statistics they can honestly state that 100% of CTC members support insurance for cycling.......

I'm slightly confused by Pepe Tozzo's predicament. I thought the Motorist Insurance Bureau was there to pay him because the van driver was uninsured.

How would cycle insurance have helped him in his case? I thought CTC insurance was mainly to pay out in case we are at fault. But in his case it sounds like the van driver was at fault.

LANDSURFER74 wrote:But as previously pointed out ..here we are ..CTC members with our charity insurance....... so when the ABI use statistics they can honestly state that 100% of CTC members support insurance for cycling.......

Hardly. Its just one of the benefits of membership. I joined for the lobbying, or the club runs, or the advice etc. I honestly think that the likelihood of needing the insurance is so low that it did not weigh at all in my decision to join.

Yes but 100% of CTC members have insurance ... right or wrong !!!!! Thats the point the ABI will use ...JHTDC...

LANDSURFER74 wrote:Yes but 100% of CTC members have insurance ... right or wrong !!!!! Thats the point the ABI will use ...JHTDC...

They may use it, but it would not be honest to say this means 100% support compulsory insurance.
What does JHTDC mean?

I totaly agree with you ... but statistics, damm statistics, and lies are the issue here ... they can claim we are all for insurance BECAUSE we all have insurance .....


"Jesus H Tap Dancing Christ" .... the blues brothers i believe ...

I've always thought that, if most cyclists had insurance, motorists' costs would increase.

Injury claims can be big by comparison with vehicle damage, so cyclists would tend to make big claims in significant numbers of cases.

As pointed out above, motorists tend to be at fault more often in car-bike accidents - so there would be more claims by cyclists than by motorists.

Once you have insurance, your insurers expect to handle all cases for you, so insured cyclists would be more likely to make claims than uninsured ones.

All of these add up to motorists' premiums increasing.

drossall wrote:I've always thought that, if most cyclists had insurance, motorists' costs would increase.

Injury claims can be big by comparison with vehicle damage, so cyclists would tend to make big claims in significant numbers of cases.

As pointed out above, motorists tend to be at fault more often in car-bike accidents - so there would be more claims by cyclists than by motorists.

Once you have insurance, your insurers expect to handle all cases for you, so insured cyclists would be more likely to make claims than uninsured ones.

All of these add up to motorists' premiums increasing.

That's a really good point. And of course the "life" claims for the insured party's family....