It's mandatory in Switzerland and just cost about 70 euro a year.....
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
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.?
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.- 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 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?Well you're free to add lots of stats and case studies to support your argument.
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.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 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.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
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.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?
A better question might be - why would you start with that?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?
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!Cyclists just don't do that kind of damage to property, and the frequency of doing serious harm to people is very, very low
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.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
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?
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.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.
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?
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.
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
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?
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.
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.So rather than learn from other countries vast experience, you think we should waste time and resources re-inventing the wheel.
Perhaps you'd like to explain why creating barriers to reduced pollution, reduced traffic chaos, improved public health is 'better'?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.
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.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?