Third party insurance

SimonAH

There were a couple of numpties going on about the accountability (or lack of) for cyclists as compared to motorists on the BBC1 breakfast show this morning. One of the suggestions raised was a registration, tax and insurance requirement for cyclists to level the playing field.

I then got into a discussion over the morning coffee with the present Mrs AH (she works in the insurance industry) who didn’t think that insurance would be a bad thing as bikes can and do cause damage through rider error. My attitude is that yes they do, but that the damage is likely to be absolutely minimal and covered by either household insurance or vehicle insurance. Should we all also be required to have child insurance policies to cover any damage caused by our children?

But then I got to thinking about it on the ride in this morning – it gets to be quite a complicated issue, especially with the compensation culture. What happens if you smack into a ped and give him/her brain damage in the resulting tumble? What if you should fall off in the middle of the road thus forcing the car behind you to swerve and brake violently causing a major accident? Who picks up the tab if your laptop falls out of your courier bag and punches a hole through the windscreen of the car behind?

Not simple is it?

soundninjauk

I'd have thought a decent proportion of us would have third party insurance through membership of CTC/LCC, but then it'll probably turn out that it's actually some tiny percentage. In any case, given how hard it is to enforce insurance for motor vehicles, I can see it being pretty hard to make it stick for bicycles.

Pufftmw

Not everyone has motor vehicle insurance and I'm not sure that it would cover you on your bicycle anyway.

Public liability insurance most normally comes with House Insurance but this does not always cover you outside of the home environment. You're better off getting your own 3rd party insurance.

All our couriers (vans, bikes & cycles) are covered by a compuslory (to them) public liability insurance when sub-contracting for us. Costs £1.50 per week and covers them for any 3rd party claim against them. It makes sense and provides peace of mind.

cjcp

Have got insurance with BC. Better to be safe. You never know when you might "dink" the back of an expensive car when they brake faster than you, or if you slide on freshly-painted road markings.

sketchley

soundninjauk wrote:

I'd have thought a decent proportion of us would have third party insurance through membership of CTC/LCC, but then it'll probably turn out that it's actually some tiny percentage. In any case, given how hard it is to enforce insurance for motor vehicles, I can see it being pretty hard to make it stick for bicycles.

+1 - LCC membership, £32 a year for an Adult, £55 for Family and includes Third Party Insurance. Plus a 10% discount at most bikes shops means it pays for itself.

iPete

The prospect of taking of a Veyron wing mirror or something has always been on my mind. I also watched a car cross in front of my mate who left a hefty dent in the side of a car, easily a grand or so worth of damage. In a situation where its not the drivers fault I can't afford that! Personally, liability cover makes complete sense for any regular cyclist.

Signed up to BC when they did a half price offer, got the Race package so I can try and embarrass myself at an event this year hopefully.

http://www.britishcycling.org.uk/member ... hip-Home-0

notsoblue

I wonder how many pedestrians have insurance to cover them damaging a bike by running out into traffic.

Dudu

+ [several]

Join a cycling organisation that includes 3rd party insurance in the deal - BC, CTC, LCC to name but a few.

The premia are reckoned to be between 1/20th and 1/50th of those charged to motorists. Wonder why?....

iPete

notsoblue wrote:

I wonder how many pedestrians have insurance to cover them damaging a bike by running out into traffic.

None, cycle into a car and it can be costly, what to peds have to do with that?

I've ran into a car at full pace, whilst my knee didn't work for days I didn't leave a mark :oops:

W1

iPete wrote:

notsoblue wrote:

I wonder how many pedestrians have insurance to cover them damaging a bike by running out into traffic.

None, cycle into a car and it can be costly, what to peds have to do with that?

I've ran into a car at full pace, whilst my knee didn't work for days I didn't leave a mark :oops:

What about a ped causing an accident?

sketchley

W1 wrote:

iPete wrote:

notsoblue wrote:

I wonder how many pedestrians have insurance to cover them damaging a bike by running out into traffic.

None, cycle into a car and it can be costly, what to peds have to do with that?

I've ran into a car at full pace, whilst my knee didn't work for days I didn't leave a mark :oops:

What about a ped causing an accident?

Interesting read

http://personalinjury.ffw.com/cases/201 ... an-at.aspx

iPete

W1 wrote:

iPete wrote:

notsoblue wrote:

I wonder how many pedestrians have insurance to cover them damaging a bike by running out into traffic.

None, cycle into a car and it can be costly, what to peds have to do with that?

I've ran into a car at full pace, whilst my knee didn't work for days I didn't leave a mark :oops:

What about a ped causing an accident?

If this worries you, get something more comprehensive than liability cover. You'd have to go down the route of taking them to court no doubt to recover costs.

bails87

Does insurance make riders act more recklessly?

If you've got no insurance a crash will be expensive, so you'll want to avoid it, but if it won't cost you anything, why not take a chance and try to squeeze past that Ferrari.....

bails87

iPete wrote:

W1 wrote:

What about a ped causing an accident?

If this worries you, get something more comprehensive than liability cover. You'd have to go down the route of taking them to court no doubt to recover costs.

I think the point is that no-one ever says "pedestrians should be taxed/licensed/insured" when they too have got potential to cause an accident. As in the case linked to above. As the motorcyclist in that case I'd have wanted to sue the guy for damage to my bike (if any), but without insurance he might not have been able to pay.

soundninjauk

Sketchley wrote:

W1 wrote:

iPete wrote:

notsoblue wrote:

I wonder how many pedestrians have insurance to cover them damaging a bike by running out into traffic.

None, cycle into a car and it can be costly, what to peds have to do with that?

I've ran into a car at full pace, whilst my knee didn't work for days I didn't leave a mark :oops:

What about a ped causing an accident?

Interesting read

http://personalinjury.ffw.com/cases/201 ... an-at.aspx

What? How can someone cause an accident, and then have the other party involved declared as 'liable'? If you run out in front of traffic, then it's your own bloody fault if it hits you!

Can someone explain this to me?

grumblegrumblebloodylawyersgrumble

W1

bails87 wrote:

iPete wrote:

W1 wrote:

What about a ped causing an accident?

If this worries you, get something more comprehensive than liability cover. You'd have to go down the route of taking them to court no doubt to recover costs.

I think the point is that no-one ever says "pedestrians should be taxed/licensed/insured" when they too have got potential to cause an accident. As in the case linked to above. As the motorcyclist in that case I'd have wanted to sue the guy for damage to my bike (if any), but without insurance he might not have been able to pay.

Indeed. There's no point in litigating against someone with no money.

My point was, peds can cause accidents too, so I don't see the distinction for asking cyclists for insurance without incorporating all road users who have the potential to cause accidents.

W1

soundninjauk wrote:

What? How can someone cause an accident, and then have the other party involved declared as 'liable'? If you run out in front of traffic, then it's your own bloody fault if it hits you!

Can someone explain this to me?

grumblegrumblebloodylawyersgrumble

I would assume:
- facts not completely clear on liability
- ped not insured so not worth claiming against
- motorbike partly liable
- settled to avoid excessive costs.

sketchley

soundninjauk wrote:

Sketchley wrote:

W1 wrote:

iPete wrote:

notsoblue wrote:

I wonder how many pedestrians have insurance to cover them damaging a bike by running out into traffic.

None, cycle into a car and it can be costly, what to peds have to do with that?

I've ran into a car at full pace, whilst my knee didn't work for days I didn't leave a mark :oops:

What about a ped causing an accident?

Interesting read

http://personalinjury.ffw.com/cases/201 ... an-at.aspx

What? How can someone cause an accident, and then have the other party involved declared as 'liable'? If you run out in front of traffic, then it's your own bloody fault if it hits you!

Can someone explain this to me?

grumblegrumblebloodylawyersgrumble

Nope I can't explain it

jrab

As far as insurance goes, British Cycling, CTC & LCC membership currently stands at around 100,000, all of whom will have 3rd party insurance as part of their membership. I guess other cycling organisations include similar cover too? Probably still a pretty small proportion of cyclists but it does show that Adam Tranter (on BBC Breakfast) was talking out of his bottom.

Cyclists (OK, maybe not all "people on bikes") DO take responsibility for their actions - one of the reasons I joined BC was for the insurance, because I was responsible enough to think about what could happen if I made a mistake and hit someone / something. £30-something a year is peanuts (especially considering how much I've spent on bikes & kit!!)

Apparently cyclists aren't accountable enough. Actually I'm very accountable - to myself, because if I do something dumb it's likely to hurt!!! In turn, "hurt" is quite likely to mean time off work, general disruption to family life etc etc. Sounds pretty accountable to me.

Same old argument from Adam Tranter - it's all the fault of the cyclist because they jump red lights (how many motorists?), don't have insurance (how many motorists?), don't signal properly (again, how many motorists?!), etc. What was that old saying about "two wrongs....."

As usual, the anti-cyclist arguments are an attempt to disguise the fact that many motorists put their brain away in the drawer when they pick up the car keys. Being in charge of 1-2 tons travelling at speed is NOT an ideal opportunity to dream about what you're having for tea.

Richard.

walkingbootweather

bails87 wrote:

Does insurance make riders act more recklessly?

If you've got no insurance a crash will be expensive, so you'll want to avoid it, but if it won't cost you anything, why not take a chance and try to squeeze past that Ferrari.....

If someone voluntarity takes out insurance aren't they most likely to be more cautious by nature hence less likely to take greater risks?

There are dozens of everyday activities in which participants may cause damage but are often uninsured - golfing, kite flying, skiing, shopping (them trolleys can be a menace), not to mention skateboards, roller skates, scooters, pushchairs, mobility scooters etc. etc.

It wouldn't be a bad idea to have a single cover all policy, and in some cases home insurance may go some way towards this. For cycling it is a case of balancing risks - if you ride a lot or perceive the likelihood of a claim is high it is probably a sound investment.

soundninjauk

W1 wrote:

soundninjauk wrote:

What? How can someone cause an accident, and then have the other party involved declared as 'liable'? If you run out in front of traffic, then it's your own bloody fault if it hits you!

Can someone explain this to me?

grumblegrumblebloodylawyersgrumble

I would assume:
- facts not completely clear on liability
- ped not insured so not worth claiming against
- motorbike partly liable
- settled to avoid excessive costs.

So if there had been CCTV or similar that could conclusively indicate that it was purely the pedestrian's fault, then the motorbike would not have been declared liable, and very little money would have changed hands (as the pedestrian has none)?

But as it is, you can't prove that it wasn't totally the pedestrians fault, so the motorbike was probably partly at fault, so they hand over the best part of £100k to make it go away? I mean, to me, £95,000 seems like pretty excessive costs for something that's not your fault, even if it is your insurance company paying the money.

W1

soundninjauk wrote:

W1 wrote:

soundninjauk wrote:

What? How can someone cause an accident, and then have the other party involved declared as 'liable'? If you run out in front of traffic, then it's your own bloody fault if it hits you!

Can someone explain this to me?

grumblegrumblebloodylawyersgrumble

I would assume:
- facts not completely clear on liability
- ped not insured so not worth claiming against
- motorbike partly liable
- settled to avoid excessive costs.

So if there had been CCTV or similar that could conclusively indicate that it was purely the pedestrian's fault, then the motorbike would not have been declared liable, and very little money would have changed hands (as the pedestrian has none)?

But as it is, you can't prove that it wasn't totally the pedestrians fault, so the motorbike was probably partly at fault, so they hand over the best part of £100k to make it go away? I mean, to me, £95,000 seems like pretty excessive costs for something that's not your fault, even if it is your insurance company paying the money.

Pretty much. But he was knocked with 60% contributory negligence, i.e. 60% of the "value" of his claim was deducted, so he only got 40%. £95k isn't that much, depending on the injuries and care required.

W1

JRAB wrote:

Cyclists (OK, maybe not all "people on bikes") DO take responsibility for their actions - one of the reasons I joined BC was for the insurance, because I was responsible enough to think about what could happen if I made a mistake and hit someone / something. £30-something a year is peanuts (especially considering how much I've spent on bikes & kit!!).

The primary reason why I joined the LCC was the insurance. It cost £32 a year for membership, and the 10% discount at Evans and Cyclesurgery paid for the membership anyway, so it was effectively free. In any event, a moment's inattention can easily cause £32 worth of damage to a car, not to mention the risk of possibly being liable for serious injury to a ped (which would bankrupt most individuals).

I don't think I'm any more reckless due to the insurance - I'm more worried by bodily injury than monetary loss, so I try to avoid both if possible!

jrab

soundninjauk wrote:

So if there had been CCTV or similar that could conclusively indicate that it was purely the pedestrian's fault, then the motorbike would not have been declared liable, and very little money would have changed hands (as the pedestrian has none)?

But as it is, you can't prove that it wasn't totally the pedestrians fault, so the motorbike was probably partly at fault, so they hand over the best part of £100k to make it go away? I mean, to me, £95,000 seems like pretty excessive costs for something that's not your fault, even if it is your insurance company paying the money.

That's why the cost of car insurance is off the scale. Bloody ambulance-chasers - Derek the pedestrian gets £95k but is pretty mashed-up in exchange, only party to really profit is Field Fisher Waterhouse. No wonder they highlight the case-study on their website.

I don't wish his injuries on him or anyone else, but really by the age of 81 you should know the Green Cross Code.

Richard.

W1

JRAB wrote:

soundninjauk wrote:

So if there had been CCTV or similar that could conclusively indicate that it was purely the pedestrian's fault, then the motorbike would not have been declared liable, and very little money would have changed hands (as the pedestrian has none)?

But as it is, you can't prove that it wasn't totally the pedestrians fault, so the motorbike was probably partly at fault, so they hand over the best part of £100k to make it go away? I mean, to me, £95,000 seems like pretty excessive costs for something that's not your fault, even if it is your insurance company paying the money.

That's why the cost of car insurance is off the scale. Bloody ambulance-chasers - Derek the pedestrian gets £95k but is pretty mashed-up in exchange, only party to really profit is Field Fisher Waterhouse. No wonder they highlight the case-study on their website.

I don't wish his injuries on him or anyone else, but really by the age of 81 you should know the Green Cross Code.

Richard.

I suppose that's why he had 60% deducted. Had he been entirely blameless he would have received north of £200k. Now whether that's "reasonable" or notin reflection of the injuries sustained is a different topic entirely....

Headhuunter

I hit a ped quite hard a few years back now. I've had a couple of dinks with peds (although none for a couple of years now) usually involving me on the right of a queue of traffic, filtering through between 2 lanes and a ped dashing through the queue without looking. Mostly I have been the 1 to hit the deck and the ped has remained upright.

My worst ped collision was with a guy who stepped out in front of me. I was buzzing along the road that leads from Bank tube down to the top of London Bridge (can't remember the name). The road ahead wascompletely clear and this guy emerged from an office bldg on the left, looked down the road, seemingly right at me and then when I was literally a couple of metres from him, he started to walk out. I went down, he went down. Neither of us was hugely injured, he was a bit stunned and had a gash in his hand. I thought it was a bit rich when someone asked what had happened he called me a "loony cyclist" or something to that effect... He bluddy walked out in front of me! He started going on about my insurance covering his injuries, I told him that I didn't have any insurance and was not liable anyway. Gave him my address but never heard back.

Anyway, I've got BC 3rd party insurance now...

Pufftmw

^^ & some people wonder why some of us put cameras on our bikes/helmets!!

hatbeard

Headhuunter wrote:

I was buzzing along the road that leads from Bank tube down to the top of London Bridge (can't remember the name). The road ahead wascompletely clear and this guy emerged from an office bldg on the left, looked down the road, seemingly right at me and then when I was literally a couple of metres from him, he started to walk out.

I think that is quite possibly the worst road in the world for peds stepping out on you. they almost always look you in the eyes before they step out too. I now ride it slowly with my hands on the brakes in anticipation.

noodles71

I had a guy once do a u-turn in a nice new shiny BMW in front of me at London Bridge just outside Borough station. I turned with him and hit flush with the pedal and front fork. The pedal took metal out of his door, something smashed his window, my hip took out his mirror and I did an awesome bum buster on his bonnet that caved it right in.

His insurance company tried to have me for £2190 something worth of damage and sent me a letter asking me to tell them my insurer or pay up myself. I replied reminding them their insured needs to give way to everyone when executing a u-turn and they backed down. Maybe the admission I had no insurance was a deciding factor.

I was temped to chase him for damages but only ended up with a flat ended pedal instead of a rounded one and some skin missing on my forearm. No buckles or anything and I was able to ride away from it. The pain wasn't so bad knowing I could cause so much damage and ride away. The look on his face was priceless as you could imagine I had some adrenaline fuelled choice words to say before he felt safe enough to emerge from his car.

Maybe I will sign up to a club membership though as I think I used up all my luck with this one.

dhope

noodles71 wrote:

I had a guy once do a u-turn in a nice new shiny BMW in front of me at London Bridge just outside Borough station. I turned with him and hit flush with the pedal and front fork. The pedal took metal out of his door, something smashed his window, my hip took out his mirror and I did an awesome bum buster on his bonnet that caved it right in.

His insurance company tried to have me for £2190 something worth of damage and sent me a letter asking me to tell them my insurer or pay up myself. I replied reminding them their insured needs to give way to everyone when executing a u-turn and they backed down. Maybe the admission I had no insurance was a deciding factor.

I was temped to chase him for damages but only ended up with a flat ended pedal instead of a rounded one and some skin missing on my forearm. No buckles or anything and I was able to ride away from it. The pain wasn't so bad knowing I could cause so much damage and ride away. The look on his face was priceless as you could imagine I had some adrenaline fuelled choice words to say before he felt safe enough to emerge from his car.

Maybe I will sign up to a club membership though as I think I used up all my luck with this one.

Fact he was at fault would have been the deciding factor.

I'd have been very tempted to counter if they asked me for £2000. If he turned across you and you hit the car with enough force to break windows, bend peddles and remove some skin and then he had the nerve to ask you to pay for his stupidity then I'd have no qualms about asking for damages plus whatever they feel reasonable recompense for your inconvenience, aches and pains.

biondino

cjcp wrote:

Have got insurance with BC. Better to be safe. You never know when you might "dink" the back of an expensive car when they brake faster than you

End of October last year. Did £1,500 worth of damage to a hire car. Me and the driver shared the £600 (!!) excess and the hire car company waived the other £900 thank god.