Cycling UK Forum

TonyR wrote:

Ayesha wrote:I've found that motorists are naturally 'cautious' when driving alongside a cyclist, simply due to the fact that the cyclist is not insured for damage to third party property.

Most cyclists are insured for third party damage. Apart from members of the CTC and other cycling clubs getting the insurance included for free, everyone who lives in a household with home insurance is covered for third party liabilities which includes those incurred while cycling.

Yeah, but motorists don't know that. They generally assume we carry no insurance; one of their usual moans is that if we scrape them filtering through traffic they'll be left with the bill because we're uninsured - fundamentally misunderstanding third party insurance here - an uninsured person doesn't get away scot free - they have to pay themselves. It's a problem in motor accidents because usually the uninsured person doesn't have the resources to meet the costs, but in the case of a bike scratching a car they probably would.

On the losses they're making. They daren't put the costs up to cover it (if they're losing 20p in the pound, then they'd need to put around 20% on premiums, which with the average premium now apparently a grand, would be £200) because they'd lose business to any insurer that didn't; they'd rather hold onto the business, at a loss, until premiums across the industry catch up.

Nevertheless, I doubt most of them are particularly interested in insuring cyclists. It's hardly going to subsidise motor insurance to a useful degree, since no-one who doesn't cycle regularly (which is about 10% of people who have a bike, IIRC) will take it out, and they'd probably mostly go to specialist cycle insurers, e.g. through the CTC.

What they might be trying to flog, given the thrust of the "what happens if" is personal injury cover, not third party insurance.

Again, most motorists don't know anything about this and assume that once again the "poor put upon motorist" is paying through the nose lining the insurers' pockets.

Maybe when they stop this persoal injury madness the premiums can fall. People are hounded into making false or exagerated claims. A work colleague reversed into a taxi at about 2mph and they claimed whiplash lol. The insurers investigated the taxi driver for fraud.

Fraud is wrong and clearly should be punished when detected. Unfortunately, the way our law operates, anybody who goes to work in a suit and knows what to say when challenged can get away with all sorts that is "perfectly legal" in the selling of insurance "products" by deception. While the current round of repayments for the euphemistically named "mis-selling" of credit protection insurance has probably hurt profits and possibly the odd bonus, none of the people responsible has heard the bridewell gate clang shut with them on the inside.

In the meantime, people who are injured by the negligence of others are entitled to compo, and the drivers of motor vehicles injure an awful lot of people.

And the motor insurers would love for cyclists to have personal injury cover so that it could be made easier for them to claim on that, rather than against the car driver that hit them.
That would be how they would hope to get their claims down - simply by passing on the costs to the victims.
MIB only pay out if there is an uninsured loss, so if the cyclist has personal injury cover, MIB have a "get out of jail free" card.
So personal injury cover for cyclists is a way of paying for uninsured or hit & run drivers, without having to burden the motor insurance industry with the cost.

As I said before, I'm mostly annoyed with the BBC for carrying advertising against their charter, and particularly since it was disguised as informational.

And the motor insurers would love for cyclists to have personal injury cover so that it could be made easier for them to claim on that, rather than against the car driver that hit them.
That would be how they would hope to get their claims down - simply by passing on the costs to the victims.
MIB only pay out if there is an uninsured loss, so if the cyclist has personal injury cover, MIB have a "get out of jail free" card.
So personal injury cover for cyclists is a way of paying for uninsured or hit & run drivers, without having to burden the motor insurance industry with the cost.

There is a major flaw in this reasoning.

The benefits provided by Personal Injury insurance depend on how much premium is paid and are comparatively modest amounts. An accident resulting in permanent disability to a cyclist (or anyone else) could cost a negigent motorist's insurers compensation running into millions of pounds.

That's not a flaw in the reasoning at all.
The insurance industry would love for cyclists to have huge personal injury policies with enormous benefits packages, as it's an additional income for them with no overall increase in costs, since they are already liable for the vast majority of cyclist injuries, via motoring claims.

If they can encourage a situation where many hit & run victims just claim from their own personal injury insurance instead of claiming against the MIB, that's a win for them.

They wouldn't be spending money on promoting the idea if it wasn't in their interests.

I've found a quote for £250,000 payable on death caused by an accident. It's £84 a year. That does not include anything if the accident "only" causes permanent disability - this would involve a much higher premium.

It's almost commonplace for serious injury claims to cost motor insurers several million pounds (which is one reason for the high premiums) so the 2 insurances are not comparable and so claims could not be passed on to the victim.

The sad thing about this is that some cycling clubs have fallen for this ABI pitch, even though they're probably already covered.