Support road.cc

Like this site? Help us to make it better.

Back to news
news
Crime & Legal
Two thirds of people believe cyclists should be made to have insuranceMarble Arch cycle lane (copyright Simon MacMichael)

Two thirds of people believe cyclists should be made to have insurance

The fact is, most bike riders are already insured for third party liability ... though that seems lost on many who don't cycle...
by Simon_MacMichael
Wed, Aug 26, 2020 19:23
47

Almost two thirds of people believe cyclists should be required to have third-party liability insurance, according to a new survey.

Unsurprisingly, the sentiment is much stronger among motorists, 68 per cent of whom told YouGov that they support the idea, than it is among commuting cyclists, just 33 per cent of whom agreed, reports the local news website, swlondoner.co.uk.

Across the sample as a whole, 64 per cent said that cover should be compulsory, while occasional cyclists – those who ride at least once a month – were split down the middle, with 42 per cent in favour and 41 per cent opposed.

Tim Lennon, borough co-ordinator at the Richmond Cycling Campaign, told the website: “It would just be another barrier to people getting on a bike, and since cycling is really no more dangerous than walking, it would simply be a way to discourage cycling.”

Among motorists, only 18 per cent thought that it was a bad idea to make insurance mandatory for cyclists, versus 50 per cent of cycle commuters.

Leaving aside the issue that users of mechanically-propelled vehicles are required to take out third party insurance by law because of their propensity to do harm to others, the survey reflects the widely-held fallacy that cyclists are not covered for their potential legal liability to third parties.

Most bike riders, of course, are insured for that risk – whether through bespoke cycle insurance, their membership of British Cycling or affiliated clubs or organisations such as Cycling UK, or through their own household insurance.

And users of hire schemes such as London’s Santander Cycles are also automatically covered when they take one of their bikes.

The perception, however, that we are not will doubtless remain another stick for many motorists to beat us with.

> Cycle-specific insurance — Your questions answered

Insurance
third party liability
Simon MacMichael

Simon joined road.cc as news editor in 2009 and is now the site’s community editor, acting as a link between the team producing the content and our readers. A law and languages graduate, published translator and former retail analyst, he has reported on issues as diverse as cycling-related court cases, anti-doping investigations, the latest developments in the bike industry and the sport’s biggest races. Now back in London full-time after 15 years living in Oxford and Cambridge, he loves cycling along the Thames but misses having his former riding buddy, Elodie the miniature schnauzer, in the basket in front of him.

Add new comment

47 comments

Avatar
Jetmans Dad replied to SirruslyFast | 3 years ago
3 likes

SirruslyFast wrote:

I don't know anyone who is a member of British Cycling or Cycling UK ...

Are you sure about that? 

I have been a member of British Cycling for about 8 years, but I doubt many, if any of my friends know that. My wife probably doesn't even remember. 

Avatar
anagallis_arvensis | 3 years ago
9 likes

So 2/3's of people are really stupid? Seems about right.

Avatar
eburtthebike | 3 years ago
6 likes

I wonder if Yougov gave them the facts about cycling and the risk of causing harm before asking whether cyclists should have insurance, or were they just relying on years of anti-cycling media portraying them as lycra louts, killing everything in their path?

Avatar
handlebarcam | 3 years ago
4 likes

This would be the first step on the path to having to pay an insurance company for permission to leave your front door. That may sound like taking it the extreme, but there are probably already countless lawsuits filed in the US by people claiming someone gave them Covid.

It is depressing, but not surprising, that so many people clearly answered this question without thinking about the implications. Fortunately, majorities on single issues do not mattter unless a small group, which is close to power but not actually at its centre, adopts it and uses the millions of morons who believe in it as a lever to supplant those in their way. And cyclist hatred in this country is a convenient distraction, not something seen as important enough to use in this manner.

Avatar
fennesz replied to handlebarcam | 3 years ago
4 likes

handlebarcam wrote:

It is depressing, but not surprising, that so many people clearly answered this question without thinking about the implications.

Like another opinion poll back in 2016

Avatar
grumpyoldcyclist | 3 years ago
14 likes

Sort out the uninsured drivers first. Years ago my car was hit by an uninsured driver and it cost me loads. Once you've sorted the uninsured drivers, then sort the untaxed, then the ones with no MOT, then the ones with no licence. Only then think of insurance for cyclists

I wonder what the YouGov survey asked about uninsured drivers and what percentage of people wanted that sorted.........

Avatar
ktache replied to grumpyoldcyclist | 3 years ago
15 likes

There will be more uninsured motorists on the road at any time than total numbers of cyclists.

The same will be true for those without VED, perhaps current MOT.

Maybe even cloned plates.

But cyclists...

They really do hate our freedom, don't they.

I reckon there are probably more insured cyclists, as a proportion (even including those who don't even know) than there would be of motorists if it were not a legal requirement for driving.

But cyclists...

Avatar
HarrogateSpa | 3 years ago
10 likes

The 68% like the idea, as a way of punishing people who ride bikes.

Avatar
Sriracha | 3 years ago
3 likes

It would be interesting to know from the Boris Bikes scheme insurance how often claims are paid out, and how much is just profit to the insurance industry.

Avatar
Hirsute | 3 years ago
2 likes

I don't think there are enough barriers to cycling.

Without a registration scheme it is pointless (well, pointless anyway) and who is going to pay the £Bns for that ?

Here's an idea - focus on people like this

https://www.bristolpost.co.uk/news/bristol-news/man-wrote-rental-bmw-wor...

Avatar
wtjs replied to Hirsute | 3 years ago
1 like

Without a registration scheme it is pointless

Very good point. The sentencing for your Bristol crazed driver seemed reasonable, until it came to the insufficient driving ban. 

Avatar
Housecathst | 3 years ago
11 likes

It's a freebie on your home contents Insurance, with at least £2 million cover. 

i bet there are fewer uninsured cyclists than there are motorists. The current estimate for uninsured motorists in 1.5 million. 

Avatar
wycombewheeler replied to Housecathst | 3 years ago
0 likes

i see this line used a lot, but it can't be universally true, otherwise why did Robert Hazledean have a problem. There is no reason for cyclists not to get insured, the damage we can do to property is generally managable, but the costs of personell injury can be significant. Not worth the risk for £25 a year

Avatar
hawkinspeter replied to wycombewheeler | 3 years ago
10 likes

wycombewheeler wrote:

i see this line used a lot, but it can't be universally true, otherwise why did Robert Hazledean have a problem. There is no reason for cyclists not to get insured, the damage we can do to property is generally managable, but the costs of personell injury can be significant. Not worth the risk for £25 a year

Robert Hazeldean had a problem because he didn't get legal representation in time and thought he'd do it himself.

Avatar
wycombewheeler replied to hawkinspeter | 3 years ago
0 likes
hawkinspeter wrote:

wycombewheeler wrote:

i see this line used a lot, but it can't be universally true, otherwise why did Robert Hazledean have a problem. There is no reason for cyclists not to get insured, the damage we can do to property is generally managable, but the costs of personell injury can be significant. Not worth the risk for £25 a year

Robert Hazeldean had a problem because he didn't get legal representation in time and thought he'd do it himself.

But did he or did he not have 3rd party liability insurance? Because the reports say if he had, costs would have been limited to £7000.

If he had cover, then the insurance would have organised the legal team in the beginning, or possibly just paid out as it was cheaper

Leaving aside the issue that it is absurd for 60,000 to be spent in legal fees over a compensation payment of less than a tenth of that.

Avatar
AlsoSomniloquism replied to wycombewheeler | 3 years ago
2 likes

Or he had cover but didn't realise to use it. However because he never "countersued" his costs went up and then because he never got legal council, he probabaly wasn't covered under his insurance then. 

Avatar
StuInNorway | 3 years ago
13 likes

We are talking about the same group of people who believe they still pay a "Road tax" abolished 83 years ago in an attempt to stop drivers feeling that they "Owned the road" . . you know that thing they accuse cyclists of believing because we'd like them to share it in a less dangerous manner....

Pages

Latest Comments