As the spectre of mandatory cycle insurance rears its head in the national press once again, in the wake of a suspended prison sentence handed out to a cyclist who left a female pedestrian with broken teeth and requiring her finger to be amputated, one specialist cycling insurance provider has spoken out against calls to make protection for people who ride bikes mandatory.
Responding to a column in the Times this week asking ‘Should cyclists have to take out insurance?’, ETA Services, a specialist bicycle insurance and breakdown cover provider, wrote on social media: “Even we cycle insurance providers say NO. Next question…”
Expanding on their stance in the comments under their post, the company continued: “We’re not saying that cycle insurance isn’t an extremely useful thing to have – after all, it’s our business. It’s the making it mandatory we have a problem with.”
Even we cycle insurance providers say NO. Next question… pic.twitter.com/MOnTmHNb3T
— ETA Services Ltd (@ETAservicesltd) September 6, 2024
Replying to one cyclist who said “third party insurance is a no brainer. Many cycling clubs include it with their membership”, ETA added: “The actuarial risk doesn’t justify making it mandatory. It’s like suggesting pedestrians should be forced to have it.”
Meanwhile, another social media wrote: “Here’s a scenario: A cyclist pulls up beside my car at some traffic lights, they lose their balance and fall against the side of my car, scratching the paintwork and denting the panel. They are clearly at fault. Should I have to pay for the repairs myself?!”
“In answer to your question, no,” ETA’s social media admin said. “However, it has nothing to do with the requirement for mandatory insurance.”
> Two thirds of people believe cyclists should be made to have insurance
The oddity of a cycle insurance provider speaking out against, well, cycle insurance came as the boss of the world’s largest insurance market – which, notably, does not provide cover for cyclists – suggested that pedestrians and people who ride bikes should consider taking out protection in case of a collision.
John Neal, chief executive of Lloyd’s of London, told the Telegraph that it is not “such a daft idea” to expect cyclists to take out insurance to protect themselves and other road users, while also arguing in favour of all cyclists wearing helmets.
“Having been knocked off my bicycle two and a half years ago, I know what it’s like to be hit by somebody. So I think you could do with a bit of protection as well,” Neal, who describes himself as a “keen cyclist”, said.
On the subject of helmets, he continued: “I can’t comprehend why anybody would not wear a crash hat riding a bike. I just couldn’t comprehend why people would not do that.”
The latest debate in the national media concerning cycle insurance, helmets, and number plates comes after a drunk cyclist who hit two women on a pavement in Cheshire before riding off, leaving one of the victims unconscious, with broken teeth and an injury to her little finger that later had to be amputated, was given a suspended jail sentence earlier this week.
Carwyn Thomas pleaded guilty to two charges of causing bodily harm by wanton or furious driving and appeared before a judge at Chester Crown Court who called his actions “shameful” and sentenced the drunk cyclist to a 14-month prison sentence, suspended for two years.
The case has been leapt on by certain sections of the media, with Nick Freeman, the lawyer famous for obtaining not guilty verdicts for celebrities charged with driving offences and known by his Mr Loophole nickname, appearing on TalkTV to make the case for updated legislation and cyclists to be required to display a number plate.
The segment was broadcast on Monday morning, a clip from Mike Graham’s show having been since posted on YouTube by TalkTV with a factually incorrect title claiming Thomas “killed two”, a title that remains up and uncorrected more than five days later.
During the show Freeman said: “All we’ve got is the Offences Against the Person Act 1861, wanton and furious cycling, which was designed for horse carriages not for cycles.
“So we don’t really have any relevant legislation and what little legislation we have, such as not going through red lights, there’s no teeth behind it because you can’t identify the driver [rider] and even if you can identify them, there’s no real punishment. It’s a small financial penalty, so the law needs to be revised.
“If you don’t have legislation and you don’t make people accountable then they’re going to do whatever they want. It would be like taking number plates off cars, people would drive dangerously.”
While Freeman’s repeated calls for number plates over the years have mostly received a lukewarm response, there has recently been more backing politically for a new, up to date ‘dangerous cycling’ law.
A Conservative attempt to pass the legislation was halted by this year’s general election, while the Labour Party also said during the campaign that it “will change the law to protect people from dangerous cycling” if it won, although this statement was not seen in the party’s manifesto or King’s Speech, not that its omission from headline policy precludes future legislation.
Now, a spokeswoman for the Department for Transport said: “The safety of our roads is an absolute priority for this Government, and that’s why we are committed to delivering a new Road Safety Strategy – the first in over a decade. We will set out next steps on this in due course.”
48 thoughts on “Cycle insurance provider says cyclists shouldn’t have to take out insurance, as Lloyd’s of London boss argues insurance “not such a daft idea” while calling for all cyclists to wear “crash hats””
“even if you can identify
“even if you can identify them, there’s no real punishment. It’s a small financial penalty, so the law needs to be revised.”
What would Mr Freeman suggest should be the penalty for each ‘crime’, and would he accept that this should apply to all road users equally?
Cyclists don’t have licences, so you can’t take that away, which leaves either a financial penalty, community service, or a custodial sentence.
Apparently the financial penalty isn’t enough for him, and a custodial sentence would be ridiculously out of proportion (and there are enough issues with the number of prisoners). With the number of car drivers I see going through red lights (as his example), we would have spotless streets if community service was the answer across the board.
The more I walk and cycle,
The more I walk and cycle, the more I realise just how fucking awful general driving is. You are so insulated to it as a driver and because you are “in the traffic” you don’t notice it as much but walking (especially) and cycling makes you far more attuned to it. Its just constant. Stupid accellerating. Constant driving above the speed limit. Taking corners on the wrong side of the road. Taking junctions at speed and on completely the wrong side of the road. Talking on phones. Not actually looking at the road. Its endemic and completely ignored.
Thats ignoring the issue you face as a pedestrian/cyclist of people completely blocking the pavement/cycle paths because who gives a flying fuck about anyone else. I’ve got to the point where I don’t give a shit about peoples cars. If they want to park on the pavement and force me into the brambles then I don’t give a shit when pushing a pram. If their paint gets scratched, oh well. If I whack into their mirror, oh well. Inconsiderate pricks even when they aren’t driving.
You will generally have no
You will generally have no idea why any individual has parked in that way though. And even if you did, what gives you the right to inflict punishment on strangers? Taking your general frustration out on the first badly parked car you come across seems a very bad idea.
First? If you had said the
First? If you had said the hundred and first of that day then you would be nearer. I encounter hundreds of cars parked in ways that block pavements, views at zebra crossings and junctions every single day. As my mum is 82 and partially sighted as well as unsteady on her feet, you can understand why it’s a real bugbear of mine and like McTrials I take absolutely no care over whether I damage their mirrors as I force my way by on the pavement rather than step in to the road to pass. Why should I have a thought for their precious car when they clearly didn’t give a crap for any pedestrians?
Not sure we should be
Not sure we should be encouraging offending but if someone has done something both illegal (driving on the footway) and selectively antisocial (stuff people using the footway because I’m worried what about the people driving my do to my motor) … I do think the principle of “your own safety over property” might apply at least as much as the “butbut you don’t know if they had to leave their car for a medical emergency / they are disabled and other selfish people had taken all the spaces / they couldn’t be arsed to drive round the back of the building to park when buying an emergency packet of fags”?
Of course we all know antisocial parking is considered pro-social towards other drivers, has been decriminalised (confirmed verbally by police) and is so in practice (very sporadic ticketing / low fines). Good news for Scotland and particularly for Edinburgh where this has been re- criminalised and taken seriously by the council – albeit it’ll take a long time for behaviour to change and “but deliveries”.
How about burglars John?
How about burglars John? Must I explore their motives before tackling them?
Should I contact their social worker or might their probation officer be more forthcoming about their troubles?
They park like that because
They park like that because they are selfish and ignorant. There’s no need for it.
I wonder how it feels for
I wonder how it feels for wheelchair users who have to go on the road all the time due to all the parked cars blocking the dropped kerbs and pavements. How many tears will I shed if I see someone scraping a pram along one of these cars?
When I worked as a carer, the
When I worked as a carer, the guy I was working for found it hilarious when we “made space” past cars parked over dropped kerbs.
His chair had quite small wheels which made going off kerbs very difficult so we had to take the opportunities available to us, fortunately the frame was an absolute tank of welded steel tube which had a good rate Vs wing mirrors and automotive paint
john_smith wrote:
The why of it makes absolutely no odds, if they’re obstructing the pavement, it’s surely a strict liability offence – there’s no excuse. Generally, even when they are completely obstructing the pavement, they are still obstructing enough of one lane of the road that I’ll have to wait to pass – so they may as well have let the pavement unobstructed. Regardless obstructing the pavement, to avoid obstructing one side of the road is not okay – if it’s necessary to obstruct something, obstructing one side of the road is by far the lesser evil.
john_smith wrote:
I have an idea why they’ve parked that way – it’s because they are rude, inconsiderate, lazy people who avoid inconvenience to themselves by inconveniencing others.
I’m not in favour of the vandalism thing though (although I’ve been sorely tempted on more than one occasion)
If only…
A/ There was more robust enforcement
…or…
B/ People didn’t park like that
…then people wouldn’t have any reason to even contemplate retaliation.
As usual, there are two instance of anti-social behaviour, but the not one of the perpetrators can change their behaviour to avoid the other.
I used to turn the wing
I used to turn the wing mirrors in of cars parked on the narrow pavement in our village when I used to walk my daughter to primary school. Most of them belonged to other parents. There was nearly always dog poo on the narrow path too. Why should I have to let go of the hand of small child just to avoid damaging their precious motor? Most of those parents lived closer to the school than we did!
Capercaillie wrote:
This is my preferred MO. A (perhaps too subtle) message that says “just know that if you park like this to avoid someone hitting your car; someone else is going to touch your car.”
mctrials23 wrote:
It’s the same in Shrewsbury. 30 and 40 mph speed limits are ignored by many drivers. Pavement parking is standard practice (and sorry @john_smith but it’s nearly always done with zero consideration for pedestrians), a lot of drivers act like Mr Toad, as if they own the road, expecting everyone not in a car or van to move out of their way (though to be fair there are some that don’t). Not giving a flying fuck about others seems to be the way to be nowadays.
mctrials23 wrote:
Not me, I would never scratch a car but I might me tempted to slip a knife blade into a tyre wall.
I don’t agree with damaging
I don’t agree with damaging property but the rest holds very true.
mctrials23 wrote:
Sounds very much like my local roads – twice a day dog walks, and it’s pretty much the same, every time. (And in a residential 30mph zone, that’s not a cut through)
This Lloyds? https://www
This Lloyds? https://www.worldfinance.com/markets/lloyds-of-london-from-success-to-scandal
Existing markets/new products
Existing products/new markets.
Can’t see it happening;
Can’t see it happening; certainly not under this government with it’s commitment to active travel and green policies. An increase in cycling is key to their success, so they won’t take any mesures which will discourage it.
Nothing wrong with the
Nothing wrong with the existing legislation, wanton and furious are rather better defined and more evocative than the hopelessly illdefined ‘careless’ and ‘dangerous’ used for car legislation.
I quite like the careless and
I quite like the careless and dangerous. Did the accused see the victim? If yes, dangerous, if no, careless. If the victim does something erratic to endager themselves, they are no longer the victim.
But in practice in the UK
But in practice in the UK that’s all moot (at least for the driving case) because despite definitions alongside the laws AND the fact we’ve got an actual driving test / examiners we could use to rate the driving we see stuff like “I didn’t see them” covering “I didn’t bother to look”. That’s aside from the CPS being incentivised to bring / settle for the lesser charge.
The judgements are being made by people who aren’t good drivers themselves, or are prone to say “…but we know that this happens all the time…” or in the case of cyclists being involved have very little idea of the risks and safe cycling strategies.
I think the idea we’ll get better judgements with that system when a cyclist has hit someone is a bit of a stretch!
Of course that’s really an argument for better understanding of our roads and more people having experience of cycling…
And we can now start taking
And we can now start taking driving licences off more than the accused, it’s a perfect plan.
don simon fbpe wrote:
I can’t see(!) that working very well. A driver simply has to declare that they didn’t see the victim and they get the lesser charge. Also, I’d be concerned about a jury of typical drivers thinking that a cyclist displayed erratic behaviour by joining a road after the cessation of a bike lane or riding two abreast.
How about defining careless as driving that would fail a driving test and dangerous as a period of driving that would fail the driving test and contravenes laws or the Highway Code (e.g. exceeding the speed limit, using a mobile phone, being intoxicated etc).
You’d have innocent until
You’d have innocent until proven guilty, prove the cyclist was behaving erratically. And if you do get the typical driver jury, there’s an opportunity to remove more than one licence. I can’t see rducing the number of drivers as ever being a contentious issue.
don simon fbpe wrote:
Sorry, but I don’t like the idea of focussing on the victim’s behaviour unless it was clearly unusual and even then, it should be considered as determining the ratio of fault. A child running into a road to fetch their football could be considered erratic, but it shouldn’t excuse someone driving at 40mph down a residential street and hitting them.
Also, are you suggesting removing the licences from clueless jury members? If so, then that goes into a recursion as you’d surely be asking a jury to determine whether the jury member is fit to drive.
A child running into the road
A child running into the road in a residential street is not erratic. It should be expected and driving style change to accommodate this.
don simon fbpe wrote:
I agree, but I’d expect quite a few drivers to disagree.
Where do you draw the line between a typical hazard and erratic? Possibly how easy it is to predict for an experienced road user.
I’m not a legal expert, but I
I’m not a legal expert, but I’m sure definitions could be written up. Some sort of expected behaviour in context to the surrounding. I’m sure circumstances could dictate the definition, getting run over by a car at 20mph take more planning and skill than being run over by a car doing 40mph on a built up, residential road.
don simon fbpe wrote:
I prefer using driving examiners as expert testimony. Ask the examiner about the alleged driving and whether that would fail a driving test – if so, then that counts as at least careless driving. It’d hammer home the idea that the driving test is the minimum driving skill that’s required to use public roads.
hawkinspeter wrote:
Yes. Think this would cover our demand to have rights to challenge evidence and ask questions etc. Only issue I can see is cost / logistics of getting people who have a job into court.
It would be a massive stretch under our current culture though. I think jurors (if they’re honest) know that after passing the test people may grow in *confidence* but some decline in skill – at least those tested in a driving test. (Practice makes… habit.)
And judge cases accordingly.
chrisonabike wrote:
Pay for the driving examiners’ time with a car insurance surcharge. There’s also the possibility of employing an ex-examiner full time if necessary – could be an alternative to them retiring or if they’re no longer willing to sit with learner drivers.
In theory, the extra cost should be offset by better driving standards, so the insurance companies should be able to offer lower premiums if people aren’t crashing so much.
Careless driving is that
Careless driving is that below the standard expected of a careful & competent driver.
Dangerous driving is that FAR below the standard expected of a careful & competent driver.
What, therefore, is a careful & competent driver?
A careful & competent driver is a one who, with regard to the day, date, time & place concerned, would pass the prescribed test to be issued with a license to drive the category of vehicle in question.
Definitions are already there in law. Some in the actual sections of statute, some in the introduction or interpretation, and others in precedent (case law).
Well… as HP says, unless
Well… as HP says, unless each and every time the magistrates / jury are walked through the relevant definitions:
Careless driving is defined by section 3ZA RTA 1988. It is driving which falls below what would be expected of a competent and careful driver.— CPS
(First problem – this calls for the judgement of what a careful and competent driver would think – and AFAIK there is no test that those so judging are either careful and competent themselves or can understand what a careful and competent driver would judge!)
AND some explanations like the further guidance here (which I don’t think are actually in the law itself – but not a lawyer and haven’t read through all the road traffic acts and case law etc…):
https://www.cps.gov.uk/legal-guidance/road-traffic-fatal-offences-and-bad-driving
… then this is going to be moot and we’re more likely to get a “feel” judgment – a “how does it seem to you?”
We know this because in fact if you read that guidance – or even just the RTA – this doesn’t sit very well with (what is reported as) evidence and judgements.
Of course – there is “case law” there in the sense that there are a wealth of precedents for what would seem to be extreme leniency / benefit of doubt!
Alternatively – perhaps people *are* instructed in what by itself doesn’t constitute dangerous driving and are simply applying those (see the latter part of the link above). The standard of proof is quite high – there are some requirements for “causation” (which is reasonable but another hurdle). “Someone died – ah, could be an accident though. Driver had never passed a test – doen’t by itself mean the driving was dangerous. Has previous? Only admissible for sentencing – we judge each event on its merits. Evidence they were pissed or high? You have to demonstrate this was sufficient to cause impairment, don’t you?”
MattDinnery wrote:
Could you let me know where you got this defintion from.
MattDinnery wrote:
Yes, but we seem to have a problem with courts and juries not following that thought process and instead accepting excuses such as “the sun was in my eyes” or “a momentary lapse of concentration”. As far as I know, those excuses wouldn’t let you pass a driving test, but we somehow accept them when people’s lives are at risk.
As far as I know, those
As far as I know, those excuses wouldn’t let you pass a driving test, but we somehow accept them when
people’scyclists’ lives are at riskYou would hope so.
You would hope so. Unfortunately it just doesn’t happen. I regularly drive <20mph in residential streets dropping down to <10 if I see youngsters. I have to deal with ijits bearing down on me blasting their horn etc.
The problem with “careless
The problem with “careless driving” and “dangerous driving” is that it fails to recognise that careless driving is always dangerous, where as dangerous driving is only sometimes careless.
The problem is that the more
The problem is that the more severe charge is harder to quantify in court. Hence unless clear and obvious, the lesser charge is usually brought to court because they are more likely to secure a conviction. Because if a defendant is aquitted of dangerous driving, they are unlikely to be facing careless charges, will therefore not be found guilty of said non-existent charges and therefore walk free.
The typical interpretations are that dangerous or reckless driving charges are for deliberate acts, careless driving is for non-deliberate or hindered by external factors.
Especially when a lot of the
Especially when a lot of the offences classed as careless are in fact totally deliberate actions.
It would be a good thing to
It would be a good thing to have Nick Freeman chained to one of those fences for 24 hours that they provide at sone junctions to protect pavement users from the motorists he so enthusiastically defends! It might give him some perspective on the relative threat posed by cyclists
I wonder if Mr Loophole’s
I wonder if Mr Loophole’s motive for making cyclists identifiable is so that he can make money getting them off the charges that they will then incur – after all, that’s his main source of income.
For all his anti-cycling
For all his anti-cycling rhetoric, he has been known to defend cyclists (https://road.cc/content/news/mr-loophole-gets-cyclist-accused-causing-crash-acquitted-289343).
That said, I think you give him too much credit – I think he simply wants the publicity.
Publicity to promote his
Publicity to promote his services, it’s how he makes a living after all
That TalkTV video is still
That TalkTV video is still titled ‘killed’.
Can we please just “cut to
Can we please just “cut to the chase” here….
Bring back Capital Punishment for any minor cycling indiscretion the average BMW driver (or ex Tory MP) deems disproportionate???
Do they really think the average balaclava clad hoody rat drug dealer/phone snatcher on their emoto-bike would have any interest complying?
Yet again, many may realise an isolated incident fuels a rabid disproportionate furore amongst the car-driving cycling-haters to regurgitate and berate their feeble-minded audience(s)?
Hopefully the Tories will make this a manifesto pledge so it can be confined to the bin with all of the other rubbish.
Re careless versus dangerous
Re careless versus dangerous driving, the issues could be solved by allowing the magistrates or judge to make a finding that the evidence was insufficient to prove the dangerous charge, but sufficient to find the accused guilty of careless driving. Similar to homicide cases, where manslaughter may be the verdict, rather than murder. It doesn’t stop plea bargaining of course, but it ought to reduce the tendency of the CPS to opt for the lesser charged.