- News
- Reviews
- Bikes
- Accessories
- Accessories - misc
- Computer mounts
- Bags
- Bar ends
- Bike bags & cases
- Bottle cages
- Bottles
- Cameras
- Car racks
- Child seats
- Computers
- Glasses
- GPS units
- Helmets
- Lights - front
- Lights - rear
- Lights - sets
- Locks
- Mirrors
- Mudguards
- Racks
- Pumps & CO2 inflators
- Puncture kits
- Reflectives
- Smart watches
- Stands and racks
- Trailers
- Clothing
- Components
- Bar tape & grips
- Bottom brackets
- Brake & gear cables
- Brake & STI levers
- Brake pads & spares
- Brakes
- Cassettes & freewheels
- Chains
- Chainsets & chainrings
- Derailleurs - front
- Derailleurs - rear
- Forks
- Gear levers & shifters
- Groupsets
- Handlebars & extensions
- Headsets
- Hubs
- Inner tubes
- Pedals
- Quick releases & skewers
- Saddles
- Seatposts
- Stems
- Wheels
- Tyres
- Health, fitness and nutrition
- Tools and workshop
- Miscellaneous
- Buyers Guides
- Features
- Forum
- Recommends
- Podcast
news
Cyclist at Marble Arch and Times cycle insurance headline (Simon MacMichael)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”
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.”
Ryan joined road.cc in December 2021 and since then has kept the site’s readers and listeners informed and enthralled (well at least occasionally) on news, the live blog, and the road.cc Podcast. After boarding a wrong bus at the world championships and ruining a good pair of jeans at the cyclocross, he now serves as road.cc’s senior news writer. Before his foray into cycling journalism, he wallowed in the equally pitiless world of academia, where he wrote a book about Victorian politics and droned on about cycling and bikes to classes of bored students (while taking every chance he could get to talk about cycling in print or on the radio). He can be found riding his bike very slowly around the narrow, scenic country lanes of Co. Down.
Latest Comments
- chrisonabike 1 hour 23 min ago
Squirrels - some say they don't like public transport, I think they're just trying to bring humans back in line with the rest of nature and return...
- john_smith 1 hour 23 min ago
Good thing cycling kit generally isn't made of Lycra then.
- Simon E 1 hour 32 min ago
What do you mean by 'fair'?...
- Surreyrider 3 hours 6 min ago
Do Orro pay Road CC or something? Their bikes get regular reviews and they're always positive yet elsewhere that is far from the case - check out...
- Barraob1 3 hours 24 min ago
Absolute cack. Chasing the more money than sense market
- Rendel Harris 3 hours 44 min ago
That I did not know, thank you!
- ktache 4 hours 11 min ago
But cars do have old tech rear reflectors. Not much development on the passive vehicular reflector, same as on the bike. Surprised there's not been...
- bikes 4 hours 50 min ago
What percentage of people complaining here start all their activities with a car journey? Walking the dogs, exercising, shopping, socialising,...
- Rendel Harris 4 hours 59 min ago
Where do you suggest they put the bikes overnight and how could the location be more secure than the shops described above? Also, how could a bike...
Add new comment
48 comments
This Lloyds? https://www.worldfinance.com/markets/lloyds-of-london-from-success-to-sc...
Existing markets/new products
Existing products/new markets.
"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 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 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 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 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? 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 are selfish and ignorant. There's no need for it.
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 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
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.
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 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!
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."
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.
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 property but the rest holds very true.
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)
Pages