According to a story today on Onlyfinance.com the nation’s cycle commuters are all doomed! DOOMED! I TELL YOU! Alright maybe it’s not that apocalyptic but we are all sitting on a “Compensation timebomb”. Mind you that warning does seem to come from James Pickering, chief Exective of Cycleguard – a bike insurance provider. The gist of the argument is that there’s been massive rise in the number of commuting cyclists, particularly in London, and a subsequent rise in the number of accidents involving cyclists and pedestrians which must mean a possible increase in levels of third party claims against cyclists. Possibly. Speaking to Onlyfinance.com James Pickering, Managing Director of Cycleguard, said: "Most cyclists don’t give third-party insurance any thought. Cycling is safe and healthy, but it’s dangerous to ignore the threat of legal action in the event of an accident. Although some household insurance policies offer a degree of third-party cover, many exclude road traffic accidents." Cycleguard also encouraged bicycle riders to think about taking out personal liability insurance, which can help them financially, should they need to pay for legal fees or with compensation claims. Mr Pickering added: "You wouldn’t dream of getting in a car without some sort of insurance in case you get badly injured, so why people think this is any different for cyclists is beyond me." Well one reason might be that the chances of being badly injured on a bike are actually quite small – cycling is one of the safest pastimes there is with a death rate on a par (excuse the pun) with golf. And conversely the more people that cycle the safer it gets. While the numbers of people injured by cyclists might be rising, might, if it is it is doing so from a tiny base. The numbers of people killed by cyclists in the UK is also small, the average is less than one death a year, you are about as likely to be killed by a skateboard. Compulsory insurance for cyclists would therefore be a nice little earner for the insurance industry – particularly as the premiums currently being charged, although they appear low when you think about the risk to the insurer of actually having to pay out on them, compared to, say, motor insurance, might actually be quite high. One other point the insurance industry don’t address: if cycling is so dangerous, and if such a tiny proportion of today’s cyclists have third party cover – why aren’t we already hearing loads of stories about cyclists being sued? If you’ve got a valuable bike, making sure it is covered by insurance seems a bit of a no-brainer, and equally some sort of third party cover is probably a good idea for everyone not just cyclists, but it has got to be at a price the reflects the actual risk of a claim. If you are in the market for insurance Cycleguard’s Roadcare policy offers third party cover and a measure of personal injury cover for £26 per year which in the current market is not a bad deal. Insurance is also an integral part of both British Cycling’s and CTC’s membership package. Gold membership of BC includes a full racing licence, loads of other benefits, third party cover, legal advice, and personal injury cover – senior Gold membership costs £62, there’s a family Gold package for £134. Everyday Cycling (British Cycling’s offshoot for non-competitive cyclists) offers membership for £2 a month which amongst other benefits includes £10 million of third party cover and legal advice should you have an accident. All CTC members are covered by £10 million third party insurance and 24 hour legal advice. Standard membership is £35, family membership £57.
- News

Insurers warn of cycle commuter “Compensation time bomb”

Help us to bring you the best cycling content
If you’ve enjoyed this article, then please consider subscribing to road.cc from as little as £2.49. Our mission is to bring you all the news that’s relevant to you as a cyclist, independent reviews, impartial buying advice and more. Your subscription will help us to do more.
2 Comments
Read more...
Read more...
Read more...
Latest Comments
@chrisonabike True, things went back to normal once the pandemic was over. In this case, however the problems are still ongoing, and aren't likely to be resolved in the near future. If anything, they're going to get worse. Food shortages are predicted because of the effect that the heatwave has had on crops. This is bound to push prices up. The Straits of Hormuz aren't likely to reopen anytime soon and the strategic oil reserves are running low. Russia is having to import petrol because its own refineries have been badly hit, so that's even more competition for an even more scarce resource. I think that more and more people are going to see cycling as a way of cutting household bills.
I think if "grown up" cyclists * are quibbling about ASLs we've very much missed the road safety point anyway. (Not to mention the wider "better transport choices" picture). ASLs are poor-to-useless "cycling infra", even for their design intent. If the idea is "for less confident cyclists" then a design that requires that you re-position in front of the motor traffic - waiting to accelerate - seems unhelpful. Of course they're only designed to help when traffic is stopped, and you can reach the front in time and if vehicles aren't already occupying them. As we're noting here drivers frequently ignore them - whether that be deliberate, a lack of road craft, because they were concentrating on following the vehicle in front, or because the paint has rubbed off. * Aside: shouldn't cycling also be safe and accessible for kids? Or should they only be allowed to do this when accompanied by sufficient qualified adults? Or be limited to parks and otherwise being driven around by their carers? Perhaps there is another way...?
Hi Bungle, I saw you follow-up comment. I can't imaging there's a tolerance of 4 seconds on camera enforced lights, seems an odd decision - an offence is committed if a vehicle starts crossing on a red, any tolerance is discretionary. There does seem to be some odd thinking about 'advanced stop lines' where the rules relating to them are identical to a regular stop line, as explained correctly elsewhere in the Highway Code. It does seem a regular offence. Where I live it doesn't help that some of them are very faint and disappear in rain.
@ktache Not sure he's totally ruled out of the worlds yet (though I think it would be best if he doesn't), normal recovery time is about eight weeks but surgery can halve that...depending on the nature of the break he could be just about fit to ride by the time of the elite men's race, but he'll have missed a lot of training. Hopefully his managers and team will persuade him to wait until Lombardia, if not just to knock it off for the rest of the year.
@Bungle_52 The Met told me a couple of years ago when rejecting a submission that they needed a clear three seconds of red visible before they would consider it for an RLJ prosecution. I pointed out to them that this meant that at 30 mph a driver could see a light change to red from 40 metres away and still get through without sanction, or 55 m if they accelerated to 40 as most do. They just replied "them's our rules..."
@Ben Graham I have just checked the footage from my report. The driver crosses the 1st stop line 4 seconds after the light turns red. All on camera from behind the vehicle. No further action. So I assume the margin is at least 4 seconds.
Oh, and active travel funding per head (in England at least) is laughable compared to other places. Plus it is delivered intermittently. It's more like a Blue Peter contest...
Yup, I see those opportunities being missed all the time in Edinburgh. When it gets really bad, dig it all up and put it back down again how it was. Contrast with what seems to happen in NL - when things are dug up the whole thing seems to get a "let's redo this according to the current standards" treatment. They even coordinate with the utilities, so that after a refurb the street isn't immediately dug up again because of leaking pipes / we suddenly realised the new estate being planned for round the corner will want broadband etc. Pros and cons of course - you may wait longer there for changes as smaller changes may be deferred until a major redo is due. (Though in the UK case you likely wouldn't get them at all...) It seems we "can't have nice things" in the UK in part because a) we have greater motor traffic speeds/volumes spead across "streets" / within urban areas b) the funding and organisational responsibility differs. Are we in the "Sam Vimes boots" territory (being too poor to afford better products which not only save money over time but actually work)? There is long term money pressure on LAs and it seems that due to poor construction and maintenance we have to regularly pour money into (pot-)holes in the road. And it seems there's no budget to check up on or enforce adequate standards from utilities work or even private building.
Shame about the world champs defence. Speedy recovery. https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2026/aug/30/tadej-pogacar-vuelta-a-espana-cycling-crash-hospital-stage-nine
I believe the accepted form for this kind of argument is "I know you are, you said you were, but what am I?".
2 thoughts on “Insurers warn of cycle commuter “Compensation time bomb””
Surely the main reason most
Surely the main reason most people wouldn’t dream of getting in a car that wasn’t insured is because it’s illegal to drive one without insurance? Bet if it wasn’t a legal requirement there’d be plenty of people who would get in one (plenty drive uninsured now), most of us don’t think we are going to have a crash whenever we get into our cars
I’ve had to pay out
i had to pay £400 to some woman once to repair her Volvo after i ran in to the back of her when i was cycling with the flu (not recommended). that’s in 20 years of cycling which would have cost me at least £500 in cover, looking at the figures quote above. so i guess i’m up on the gig so far…