Cyclists should get insurance

Status
Not open for further replies.
Jim2007 said:
It's mandatory in Switzerland and just cost about 70 euro a year.....

www.tcs.ch

TCS Velo Versicherung für Fahrrad und E-Bike

Vom europaweiten Kaskoschutz, über Diebstahlschutz zur Kostenübernahme für den Ersatz von Zubehör nach einem Sturz: versichern Sie Ihr Velo und sparen Sie Reparturkosten. inkl. Rabatt für TCS-Mitglieder!
www.tcs.ch www.tcs.ch
Click to expand...

That link says nothing about mandatory cycling insurance. Afaik they abandoned it in 2012. Perhaps there was a newer update I missed. Do you have a link to it.
 
MrEarl said:
To call a spade, a spade, the insurers always win - that's life, unfortunitely, but they are a "necessary evil".

Getting back to the cyclist, and their need for insurance to cover public liability, and the option of persinal liability, I think there's a couple of influencing factors to consider:

- there are more people cycling these days, with more people also being encouraged to cycle, which increases both the risk, and the likely number of incidents, going forward.

- there's no mandatory training, testing, or licensing, for cyclists. Literally anyone can get on a bike without relevant safety training etc.

- cyclists have the ability to travel faster than pedestrians, so if they hit something /someone, then the impact will likely do greater damage, than say a pedestrian / runner, colliding with another person, or piece of property.
- There's also the additional consideration that in a collision, part of the bike might do damage, or inflict injury (some pedals claw type grips, some handle bars are pertruding so might stuck in someone etc.)

Is the risks are deemed low, then the associated insurance premiums should be relatively low. Perhaps the fact that insurance isn't mandatory, and there's very low take up, results in little or no competition from insurers, so those in the market can charge what they like etc.?
Click to expand...

A pedestrian is just as likely to walk into the path of cyclist and cause them serious injury. A cyclist getting thrown from their bike in such a situation could be fatal. (And has been). So it's just as valid for pedestrians to have personal insurance. It's probably why the safety statistics for cycling are often counter intuitive. For example drivers driver closer to you when you are in hi Viz or something like that.

Statistically there's safety in numbers the more people cycling the less likely you are to have an injury.

Lots of cyclists have driving licences. As do drivers. It's not having a licence that makes people safer it's enforcement of the laws.
 
MrEarl said:
- there are more people cycling these days, with more people also being encouraged to cycle, which increases both the risk, and the likely number of incidents, going forward.
Click to expand...
As noted above, there are still many more pedestrians, and they are involved in way more accidents than cyclists. Even in cyclist versus pedestrian incidents, the cyclist usually comes out worse due to their momentum.

Liability insurance for cyclists would only solve a problem that does not exist and would be a significant deterrent to kids taking it up at a time when obesity is a significant problem.
 
I've just realized that this thread was spilt from another thread where a cyclist had a fall not involving anyone else, and where they had significant injuries.

As such 3rd party personal insurance wouldn't really have help with the policy holder own costs.

Its interesting how that conversation without that context, has been flipped from a cyclist being injured. To a largely stereotypical conversation about cyclists injuring other people, and needing all sorts of controls largely to the detrimental to cycling with no significant benefits otherwise.
 
Last edited:
Leo said:
As noted above, there are still many more pedestrians, and they are involved in way more accidents than cyclists. Even in cyclist versus pedestrian incidents, the cyclist usually comes out worse due to their momentum.

Liability insurance for cyclists would only solve a problem that does not exist and would be a significant deterrent to kids taking it up at a time when obesity is a significant problem.
Click to expand...
ah, wont someone think of the kids. Another oft trotted out trope, any thing done to make cycling safer and regulate it a bit will be a deterrent to people cycling.
 
MrEarl said:
It's very easy, and very tempting, to get into a slagging match between drivers, cyclists, pedestrians etc. There are good and bad in every category, as I'm sure you'll appreciate.

Let's resist temptation here, and keep the thread on topic. If your want to discuss pedestrians needing insurance, you could always start a seperate thread :)
Click to expand...
I think we both now that this dainty sidestep has more to do with avoiding facing up to the logical inconsistency in your proposal than any concerns about staying on topic.
There are indeed, good and bad in every category. But comparing the harm done by drivers of 1-4 tonne vehicles travelling at 20-150 kmph with the harm done by cyclists of 10-20kg bikes doing 10-30 kmph is a complete and utter false equivalence. Let's remind ourselves why we require mandatory insurance for motorists - because they frequently do huge amounts of damage to people and property, the costs of which go way beyond their own resources.
Cyclists just don't do that kind of damage to property, and the frequency of doing serious harm to people is very, very low. This is a solution looking for a problem to solve.
Smarter countries than ours are doing everything in their power to encourage cycling, given the considerable benefits that arise - improved public health, reduced traffic congestion, reduced climate impact and more. In France and Lithuania, people are incentivised to trade in their car for an eBike. UK did a voucher scheme to fund repairs to get old bikes back on the road. Some European cities literally paid cyclists to cycle.
And you think an additional barrier to cycling would be a good idea?
 
Blackrock1 said:
There are countless studies that show cycling helmets help in preventing serious injuries (much like seatbelts in cars) but yet they arent compulsory, thats a start, where do you stand on that?

Click to expand...
Most cycling deaths involve crush injuries, nothing that a helmet would have saved the victim from. Helmets can help prevent some head injuries but given that there are more head injuries in vehicular crashes then your logic would lead to mandatory helmet use for everyone in a car.
Australia should be a cycling nirvana with lovely weather but their insistence on mandatory helmet wearing means very few cycle there.
 
Blackrock1 said:
There are countless studies that show cycling helmets help in preventing serious injuries (much like seatbelts in cars) but yet they arent compulsory, thats a start, where do you stand on that?

Click to expand...
A better question might be - why would you start with that?


Cycle helmets aren't much like seat belts in cars at all. If you think mandatory crash helmets will reduce head injuries, start with crash helmets for car occupants, given that's where the vast majority of head injuries happen, even with seat belts and air bags and more.
 
RetirementPlan said:
Cyclists just don't do that kind of damage to property, and the frequency of doing serious harm to people is very, very low
Click to expand...
Then what have you got to worry about, you should be in favour of insurance given the likely claims will be small, and likewise the premiums!

Rather than try to replicate counties, that happen to suit your agenda, try doing the right thing for all of your fellow citizens (or, I suppose, you could always emigrate, and go and live in one of those other countries that you've mentioned, if you like them better).

Open a new thread on pedestrians needing insurance, rather than trying to change the topic here, in an effort to suit your own agenda. Go on, I dare you ;)
 
MrEarl said:
Then what have you got to worry about, you should be in favour of insurance given the likely claims will be small, and likewise the premiums!

Rather than try to replicate counties, that happen to suit your agenda, try doing the right thing for all of your fellow citizens (or, I suppose, you could always emigrate, and go and live in one of those other countries that you've mentioned, if you like them better).

Open a new thread on pedestrians needing insurance, rather than trying to change the topic here, in an effort to suit your own agenda. Go on, I dare you ;)
Click to expand...
If you want to do the right thing for your fellow citizens, you wouldn't be pushing for policies that increase pollution, reduce public health and increase traffic congestion.

I've no interest in opening a thread on insurance for pedestrians because it is a ridiculous idea, just like this idea. It is a solution looking for a problem to solve - creating a barrier to getting people cycling in order to salve some aggrieved sense of unfairness about different regulations for those who kill about 150 people each year, cause serious injuries to many, many more people and those who kill about one person each decade.

Insurance risk is a numbers game. You might want to come up with some numbers about what problem you're trying to solve here.
 
Blackrock1 said:
There are countless studies that show cycling helmets help in preventing serious injuries (much like seatbelts in cars) but yet they arent compulsory, thats a start, where do you stand on that?

Click to expand...
E3ChhFyWYAULqk9

E3ChhF5WQAYQhw6

E3ChhF8XMAAvev_
 
mathepac said:
Stupid cyclist, overtake parked cars appropriately. Stupid parent, allow children to alight on kerb-side only. There are few real "accidents", lots of "stupids" and "incidents" though.
Click to expand...
So my example wasn't really picked at random as I was directly involved in such a case. It wasn't a minor, it was my friend who was an adult passenger in my car. We parked up and he opened the kerb side door over a bike lane just as a very unfortunate cyclist was passing entirely correctly.

My mate was entirely at fault. It was a hell of a bang. In the end my mate's personal liability insurance paid up as the vehicle was stationary it was not caused by the vehicle or driver, so no liability there.

I think personal general liability insurance provides great peace of mind. I am aware that in Ireland's dysfunctional insurance and legal system that it would be difficult to implement in a cost effective way. We pay around €80 a year as a family. Peanuts really. In Ireland I imagine it would cost significantly more for the usual reasons.
 
Blackrock1 said:
There are countless studies that show cycling helmets help in preventing serious injuries (much like seatbelts in cars) but yet they arent compulsory, thats a start, where do you stand on that?

Click to expand...

There have been loads of studies showing that mandatory helmet laws make cycling LESS safe. The really scary one is how wearing a helmet affects the passing distance of cars as drivers subconsciously think you are more safe and pass closer.

For the record too, I always wear a helmet, but if someone proposed a mandatory law, I'd be out protesting against it with many other cyclists, all likely wearing a helmet to get the point across.

Most of the cycling laws, or "suggestions", or even cycle paths, are done by people who would likely struggle know which end of a bike was the front. Around where I live they are doing the third (yes third!) set of modifications to the segregated cycle paths that were installed last year, and these were far from the worst ones.

Cycling gets a lot safer for everyone involved the more cyclists there are. Even if you just count the familiarisation for motorists aspect.
 
murphaph1 said:
So my example wasn't really picked at random as I was directly involved in such a case. It wasn't a minor, it was my friend who was an adult passenger in my car. We parked up and he opened the kerb side door over a bike lane just as a very unfortunate cyclist was passing entirely correctly.

My mate was entirely at fault. It was a hell of a bang. In the end my mate's personal liability insurance paid up as the vehicle was stationary it was not caused by the vehicle or driver, so no liability there.

I think personal general liability insurance provides great peace of mind. I am aware that in Ireland's dysfunctional insurance and legal system that it would be difficult to implement in a cost effective way. We pay around €80 a year as a family. Peanuts really. In Ireland I imagine it would cost significantly more for the usual reasons.
Click to expand...

Insurance will often choose to use whichever policy is least cost to them.

I can't find any Irish examples. But its still the car that hits the cyclist. I wouldn't also assume that a driver (or their insurance) is not responsible for allowing the passenger to to exit and parking position at a cycle lane. For example in the states sometimes its the passenger and sometimes its the driver.
 
MrEarl said:
Then what have you got to worry about, you should be in favour of insurance given the likely claims will be small, and likewise the premiums!

Rather than try to replicate counties, that happen to suit your agenda, try doing the right thing for all of your fellow citizens (or, I suppose, you could always emigrate, and go and live in one of those other countries that you've mentioned, if you like them better).

Open a new thread on pedestrians needing insurance, rather than trying to change the topic here, in an effort to suit your own agenda. Go on, I dare you ;)
Click to expand...

So rather than learn from other countries vast experience, you think we should waste time and resources re-inventing the wheel.
 
Blackrock1 said:
There are countless studies that show cycling helmets help in preventing serious injuries (much like seatbelts in cars) but yet they arent compulsory, thats a start, where do you stand on that?

Click to expand...

Personally I wear a helmet, and encourage others to do so.

But holistically, if more people cycling reduces the number of head injuries per km cycled much more than than compulsory helmet laws.
Which should be done.

Blackrock1 said:
ah, wont someone think of the kids. Another oft trotted out trope, any thing done to make cycling safer and regulate it a bit will be a deterrent to people cycling.
Click to expand...

You're assuming it will make it safer, but statistically it won't.

Also we don't enforce the existing laws regarding cycling. What will more regulations that we don't enforce achieve.
 
AlbacoreA said:
So rather than learn from other countries vast experience, you think we should waste time and resources re-inventing the wheel.
Click to expand...
You imply that you think that Irish people aren't capable of doing something better - that's rediculous, if not insulting to those living in Ireland.
 
MrEarl said:
You imply that you think that Irish people aren't capable of doing something better - that's rediculous, if not insulting to those living in Ireland.
Click to expand...
Perhaps you'd like to explain why creating barriers to reduced pollution, reduced traffic chaos, improved public health is 'better'?
 
MrEarl said:
You imply that you think that Irish people aren't capable of doing something better - that's rediculous, if not insulting to those living in Ireland.
Click to expand...

I didn't imply anything. That's a strawman, to distract from the issue at hand.

These are tired old arguments, done to death on many forums, there's a ton of statistical information on all this stuff.

Cycling Insurance Statistics
 
  • Like
Reactions: Leo
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top