Is your bike insured for damage you may cause?

rjsterry

Rick Chasey wrote:

Greg66 wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

What's the likelihood of people doing financially significant third party damage?

I don't have earthquake or volcano insurance for my stuff, since I recon I'll take my chances that my place in Fulham won't be hit by either.

That approach works well right up to the point you find you've pulled the losing lottery ticket.

For sure, it's a calculation.

But for the same reason I don't play the lottery, I don't need insurance for highly unlikely events. P!ssing money away. Burglary insurance? Yes. Fire insurance? Yes. Car insurance? Compulsory - presumably because there's a good likelihood you will do noticeable 3rd party damage.

Hence the question - how likely is it that I will do financially significant damage?

Is it more likely than not it will happen at some point in my life?

That seems unlikely.

Really? At the risk of sounding like your dad, your relatively youth/lack of dependents might be giving you a less rusk averse view on this. Cycling in central London, especially through Fulham, which seems to be stacked with the somnambulant, I'd say it's reasonably likely that before long you'll hit a pedestrian or an expensive car. It may not be your fault, but others (like 'their' insurers) might think it is, and pursue you for the costs. It's a lot easier to let insurers fight amongst themselves.

Anyway, BC, CTC or LCC membership are worthwhile things to pay for anyway, and the insurance is a bonus.

greg66_tri_v2.0

Tricycleboy wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

notsoblue wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

What's the likelihood of people doing financially significant third party damage?

I passed a Bugatti Veyron that was in traffic by the Putney Bridge lights once, I could imagine a clipless incident that would lead to a few scratches :P

I've often wondered this - why don't they claim the cost on their own insurance?

'cos its not their fault you've flopped onto their bonnet and taken a chunk out of their front wing.

Exactly. It's your fault, so you should bleeding well pay for it.

You're getting all "all property is theft" and "it's never anyone's fault" again, aren't you, you bleedin' commie :twisted:

Furthermore even if they were to claim on their own insurance, their insurance company would be just as entitled to sue you for the cost of the damage as they were. Insurance =/= charity-cum-social welfare fund.

shouldbeinbed

UndercoverElephant wrote:

gtvlusso wrote:

Covered by my house insurance, both bike and my third party liability.

Me too.

Me three, with rights come responsibilities

rolf_f

Haven't we only recently had this bitter debate?

Yes for me anyway - CTC and home insurance. Why? Well, if I'm a prat and damage someone elses property, I'd like to be covered. It is entirely possible to write a car off with a bike (eg t boning it - though that is likely to be the cars fault of course) but either way, damage to cars gets expensive very quickly.

I didn't like it when a ped ran into my path and knocked me over scuffing my beloved Campag carbon levers and perhaps the ped should have been insured. But our potential for causing damage is certainly on average much higher.

If you aren't insured, you'll pay up for any damage you cause if you are a decent human being. It's like any insurance - the certainty of a low cost against the risk of a high cost.

shouldbeinbed

Rick Chasey wrote:

What's the likelihood of people doing financially significant third party damage?

I don't have earthquake or volcano insurance for my stuff, since I recon I'll take my chances that my place in Fulham won't be hit by either.

If you lived in Japan or Hawaii would you? no disrespect intended but that's a pretty stupid analogy compared to the likelihood of a collision in one of the most crowded areas of this little island.

hit a ped or other cyclist, you don't even need to be giving them brain damage, break their limb or give them whiplash and its several thousand pounds compensation, have you seen the cost of dental work? think if you managed to headbut them in the gob, add in potentially paying their wages for their sick leave, maybe reimbursing the hospital for their treatment, public transport or taxi for the period of their impaired mobility, they find the right (wrong) sort of ambulance chasing lawyer & you could be paying for the mental distress caused by them not being able to lark about in the garden with the children at weekends........ think of the costs if you happened to be adjudged guilty of running over a dog - people think dentists and lawyers can charge, wait till you get a vets bill.

veronese68

Also got 3rd party cover through British Cycling. Didn't do the vote as there is no 3rd party option, fairly major omission.

rick_chasey

Greg66 wrote:

Tricycleboy wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

notsoblue wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

What's the likelihood of people doing financially significant third party damage?

I passed a Bugatti Veyron that was in traffic by the Putney Bridge lights once, I could imagine a clipless incident that would lead to a few scratches :P

I've often wondered this - why don't they claim the cost on their own insurance?

'cos its not their fault you've flopped onto their bonnet and taken a chunk out of their front wing.

Exactly. It's your fault, so you should bleeding well pay for it.

You're getting all "all property is theft" and "it's never anyone's fault" again, aren't you, you bleedin' commie :twisted:

Furthermore even if they were to claim on their own insurance, their insurance company would be just as entitled to sue you for the cost of the damage as they were. Insurance =/= charity-cum-social welfare fund.

*shrugs* fair enough.

Would never have crossed my mind if I was a driver had I not read this thread.


NSB - you hit a ped on your bike once didn't you? Did they get lots of money off you?

rick_chasey

shouldbeinbed wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

What's the likelihood of people doing financially significant third party damage?

I don't have earthquake or volcano insurance for my stuff, since I recon I'll take my chances that my place in Fulham won't be hit by either.

If you lived in Japan or Hawaii would you? no disrespect intended but that's a pretty stupid analogy compared to the likelihood of a collision in one of the most crowded areas of this little island.

I'm asking what the likelihood actually is. I've already said I don't know what it is. At a guess, I recon it's not as likely as people 'feel'.

If I lived in Japan I probably would have earthquake insurance - that's my point.

Mr_Cellophane

gtvlusso wrote:

Covered by my house insurance, both bike and my third party liability.

+1

sketchley

Mr_Cellophane wrote:

gtvlusso wrote:

Covered by my house insurance, both bike and my third party liability.

+1

You need to check your home insurance carefully, some have exclusions for accidental damage when in use.

mr_ribble

Do you think I`m covered for the £2 million pound bill to resurface the Embankment thats going to drop through my letter box. Going to take a lot of tamac to fill in that hole

rolf_f

Rick Chasey wrote:

If I lived in Japan I probably would have earthquake insurance - that's my point.

But of course you would - you instinctively now that there is a moderate risk of an extremely high cost associated with earthquake damage of property in Japan.

Here, the risk of incurring damage to someones property due to your own actions is probablylow to moderate (the latter perhaps more likely in London) but people are less likely to assess the cost of that properly. In the earthquake, we assume our house will fall down and we'll lose everything. In the bike scenario we assume we will scratch someones paint.

If, however, you were barrelling down a hill, approaching a T junction, and you found yourself unable to stop in time and went into the side of a car, you could write it off. It doesn't take much to do that these days. On that basis, unlikely though that scenario is (though clearly not impossible) are you prepared to buy the person you hit a new car?

rick_chasey

Rolf F wrote:

[
If, however, you were barrelling down a hill, approaching a T junction, and you found yourself unable to stop in time and went into the side of a car, you could write it off. It doesn't take much to do that these days. On that basis, unlikely though that scenario is (though clearly not impossible) are you prepared to buy the person you hit a new car?

. I'd be properly going some if I wrote a car off! Probably weigh half you lot

If this is such a big concern, why isn't it mentioned more often, like, say, when you're doing your cycling proficiency, or anything like that?

I've never heard of any of my friends having problems or anything, and they all cycle. All my mates, my family, their families, we all cycle everywhere in Cambridge where I was growing up. I doubt one person would have been concerned about 3rd party insurance.

Just seems people are getting a bit over-excited and intense about it all. I'll take the risk, since I recon it's pretty small that I'll incur a cost that outweighs the cost of having insurance over a life-time.

bompington

It would be interesting, if a little deflating to all the hot air, to see some actual stats for how often 3rd party claims are made against cyclists, and for how much.

Like anything to do with very small probabilities, the human brain is more or less incapable of coming to a mathematical or rational conclusion, we seem happy to make do with prejudice and guesswork most of the time.

rick_chasey

bompington wrote:

It would be interesting, if a little deflating to all the hot air, to see some actual stats for how often 3rd party claims are made against cyclists, and for how much.

Like anything to do with very small probabilities, the human brain is more or less incapable of coming to a mathematical or rational conclusion, we seem happy to make do with prejudice and guesswork most of the time.

Absolutely!

notsoblue

Rick Chasey wrote:

NSB - you hit a ped on your bike once didn't you? Did they get lots of money off you?

Yep.

rick_chasey

notsoblue wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

NSB - you hit a ped on your bike once didn't you? Did they get lots of money off you?

Yep.

Mind if I ask how much?

rjsterry

Rick Chasey wrote:

Rolf F wrote:

[
If, however, you were barrelling down a hill, approaching a T junction, and you found yourself unable to stop in time and went into the side of a car, you could write it off. It doesn't take much to do that these days. On that basis, unlikely though that scenario is (though clearly not impossible) are you prepared to buy the person you hit a new car?

. I'd be properly going some if I wrote a car off! Probably weigh half you lot

If this is such a big concern, why isn't it mentioned more often, like, say, when you're doing your cycling proficiency, or anything like that?

I've never heard of any of my friends having problems or anything, and they all cycle. All my mates, my family, their families, we all cycle everywhere in Cambridge where I was growing up. I doubt one person would have been concerned about 3rd party insurance.

Just seems people are getting a bit over-excited and intense about it all. I'll take the risk, since I recon it's pretty small that I'll incur a cost that outweighs the cost of having insurance over a life-time.

I'm quite surprised that someone as politically engaged as you doesn't already have BC, CTC or LCC membership; I don't know whether membership of some cycling clubs includes insurance as well. I think the other point is that the premium for such insurance is tiny, so if you don't fancy any of the above why not?

rick_chasey

rjsterry wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

Rolf F wrote:

[
If, however, you were barrelling down a hill, approaching a T junction, and you found yourself unable to stop in time and went into the side of a car, you could write it off. It doesn't take much to do that these days. On that basis, unlikely though that scenario is (though clearly not impossible) are you prepared to buy the person you hit a new car?

. I'd be properly going some if I wrote a car off! Probably weigh half you lot

If this is such a big concern, why isn't it mentioned more often, like, say, when you're doing your cycling proficiency, or anything like that?

I've never heard of any of my friends having problems or anything, and they all cycle. All my mates, my family, their families, we all cycle everywhere in Cambridge where I was growing up. I doubt one person would have been concerned about 3rd party insurance.

Just seems people are getting a bit over-excited and intense about it all. I'll take the risk, since I recon it's pretty small that I'll incur a cost that outweighs the cost of having insurance over a life-time.

I'm quite surprised that someone as politically engaged as you doesn't already have BC, CTC or LCC membership; I don't know whether membership of some cycling clubs includes insurance as well. I think the other point is that the premium for such insurance is tiny, so if you don't fancy any of the above why not?

I'm more interested in party politics than cycling lobbying. You already know my views on the cycling lobby re- cycling infrastructure...

I see a lot of insurance people and they make a lot of money, and I wonder how many of us make the same calculations they do.

I was close to not getting any contents insurance, given the value of my stuff versus the cost of the insurance.

If it's only £10er than maybe I should get the cycling 3rd party insurance. If the costs and risks are as high as people suggest, I doubt it will be that small though...

shouldbeinbed

bompington wrote:

It would be interesting, if a little deflating to all the hot air, to see some actual stats for how often 3rd party claims are made against cyclists, and for how much.

Like anything to do with very small probabilities, the human brain is more or less incapable of coming to a mathematical or rational conclusion, we seem happy to make do with prejudice and guesswork most of the time.

it would also be interesting (albeit this point is academic as it'll never happen) to see if that figure shot through the roof if cyclists were more traceable and had to have compulsory registration and insurance like motorists (should) do I strongly suspect that the incidence of cyclist causing siginificant injuries is so low that when married with the fact that we don't have a reg plate/big flashing name badge on our back AND it is not a legal requirement to be insured AND the general public perception that none of us have insurance anyway will lead to an attitude of what is the point of an injured party going to the expense of suing a cyclist only to be told they're skint / declaring bankruptcy and the victim has got to pay their own lawyers bill etc and be the reason for it being so low now.

its a gamble that the victim will perceive not only very little chance of winning, but a good chance of losing even more and one of those areas where for the irresponsible idiot and responsible cyclist that might make a momentary error of judgement alike, the negative perception of cyclists rights & responsibilities works strongly in our favour.

It's the 'magic' of insurance all round though isn't it, pay it and you're doing the lottery in reverse. I've paid house insurance for over 20 years, I'm literally thousands of pounds down on the deal and would have covered the 2 claims I've ever made dozens of times over if I'd simply not bothered, but that isn't to say something drastic won't happen tomorrow that would cost a fortune I don't have and hey presto insurance is wonderful and I'm well ahead on the deal.

bompington

When I were a lad, driving an old banger with one claim already on my insurance record (I was 23 and the claim was over 5 years previously) I went to renew my insurance. 3rd Party only was something like £100 (we're talking late 80s here), and I enquired what comprehensive would cost. £500 was the answer - for a car that was valued at £200. It doesn't take a degree in maths to work out what to do in those circumstances: but I really was a bit offended that either they thought I was going to write off my car more than once a year, or they were just taking the mickey.

rjsterry

Rick Chasey wrote:

rjsterry wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

Rolf F wrote:

[
If, however, you were barrelling down a hill, approaching a T junction, and you found yourself unable to stop in time and went into the side of a car, you could write it off. It doesn't take much to do that these days. On that basis, unlikely though that scenario is (though clearly not impossible) are you prepared to buy the person you hit a new car?

. I'd be properly going some if I wrote a car off! Probably weigh half you lot

If this is such a big concern, why isn't it mentioned more often, like, say, when you're doing your cycling proficiency, or anything like that?

I've never heard of any of my friends having problems or anything, and they all cycle. All my mates, my family, their families, we all cycle everywhere in Cambridge where I was growing up. I doubt one person would have been concerned about 3rd party insurance.

Just seems people are getting a bit over-excited and intense about it all. I'll take the risk, since I recon it's pretty small that I'll incur a cost that outweighs the cost of having insurance over a life-time.

I'm quite surprised that someone as politically engaged as you doesn't already have BC, CTC or LCC membership; I don't know whether membership of some cycling clubs includes insurance as well. I think the other point is that the premium for such insurance is tiny, so if you don't fancy any of the above why not?

I'm more interested in party politics than cycling lobbying. You already know my views on the cycling lobby re- cycling infrastructure...

I see a lot of insurance people and they make a lot of money, and I wonder how many of us make the same calculations they do.

I was close to not getting any contents insurance, given the value of my stuff versus the cost of the insurance.

If it's only £10er than maybe I should get the cycling 3rd party insurance. If the costs and risks are as high as people suggest, I doubt it will be that small though...

LCC's slogan is Love London, Go Dutch. I'd have thought that was more in tune with your views than mine TBH.

Anyway, A quick google reveals that insurance - 3rd party + theft, £1million public liability cover, 'cycle rescue' and use of a courtesy bike - for a £350 bike in SW6 is about £35 a year. That seems pretty good to me, given that you'll be 33 (IIRC) by the time you've paid for a new bike.

rick_chasey

Never heard of the LCC! I just remember representing my school at a meeting re new cycling infrastructure after a few students died cycling to school there and the cycling lobbyists, (can't remember who they were) were anti any infrastructure on principle.

Put me off any organised cycling lot.


If it's £35 then I'll probably do it. I got a quote from Endsleigh for theft insurance & 3rd party a few years ago, on top of my contents and it added another £100 - which was mad - and they had weird rules regarding my bike being inside my locked flat but not bike-locked (i.e. it wouldn't be covered).

£35 for theft and £1mill liability suggests they reckon either the risk or the average claim/cost is quite small!

I'll look into it.

shouldbeinbed

bompington wrote:

When I were a lad, driving an old banger with one claim already on my insurance record (I was 23 and the claim was over 5 years previously) I went to renew my insurance. 3rd Party only was something like £100 (we're talking late 80s here), and I enquired what comprehensive would cost. £500 was the answer - for a car that was valued at £200. It doesn't take a degree in maths to work out what to do in those circumstances: but I really was a bit offended that either they thought I was going to write off my car more than once a year, or they were just taking the mickey.

- edit, added the quote


18 months ago my eldest was 20 and a newly qualified driver, I asked about putting him on our existing car insurance for the family car: 1year old 2 litre Nissan Qashqai (cost £18,000+) it would have cost me £950 extra for the full year all singing and dancung policy.
I got a quote for him for a S reg ford fiesta 1.1 (cost £350) that came back at £2,500 for less cover.

I asked why it was that such a vast difference in replacement value wasn't reflected in the fact it would cost 2.5 x as much for the banger. The reason is that the replacement cost of the vehicle is a minor concern to the insurance companies, it is the human cost of paying the compensation and medical fees that they ramp up the premiums for. As far as they were concerned a £350 15 year old banger is far more likely to see him kill or maim passengers or people outside of the vehicle than a 5* safety rated brand new car that is designed protect the occupants and to crumple and scoop rather than smash people to a pulp if it hits them.

rjsterry

http://lcc.org.uk/pages/go-dutch

https://www.eta.co.uk/insurance/cycle - it was just the one at the top of the page, so you may be able to do better.

Yes, it's not *that* likely, but worth protecting against.

SteppenHerring

A lot of clubs ask people to have 3rd party cover for riding with them. After all, in a bunch at 30mph, you can do quite a lot of damage to people and expensive bicycles with a careless move.

rick_chasey

SteppenHerring wrote:

A lot of clubs ask people to have 3rd party cover for riding with them. After all, in a bunch at 30mph, you can do quite a lot of damage to people and expensive bicycles with a careless move.

Not any I've ridden with it seems .

SteppenHerring

Rick Chasey wrote:

Not any I've ridden with it seems .

We do - but then we also ask members to marshall once a year and they ignore that too.

notsoblue

Rick Chasey wrote:

notsoblue wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

NSB - you hit a ped on your bike once didn't you? Did they get lots of money off you?

Yep.

Mind if I ask how much?

£1200. Part of that was a fine for "Furious cycling" or something like that, but the majority was compensation. It only got that far because I was accused of going through a red light. I'm pretty sore about it still because the hearing happened in my absence despite my having returned a plea of Not Guilty. I was advised that I would be able to put up a defence if I did so, but they just went ahead anyway without me and (obviously) found heavily in favour of the pedestrian. To be honest, I handled it pretty badly. I didn't seek proper legal advice and was complacent. I also didn't appeal or make a complaint about the fact that proper procedure wasn't followed, and my plea was ignored. I made the choice to just take the hit rather than risking significant legal fees trying to fight a charge that I didn't have any evidence to disprove. I guess if I had had insurance at the time I would have had assistance with this case.

For the record, I didn't jump a red light, but the accident happened just in front of a busy pedestrian crossing (between St Paul's and Cannon Street) and I ended up being flung onto it. A combination of me being concussed, and the person I hit profusely apologising to me in the ambulance we shared to the hospital meant that I didn't think to get any witnesses. I should have known better though when the first question the police officer on site asked me was if I ran a red light...

Lessons learned:
- Get witnesses if you're in an accident
- Take legal action seriously from the start
- The police have a strong anti-cyclist bias
- Stay well clear of pedestrians, they're London's holy cows.

It would be interesting to hear from anyone more legally minded if my having insurance would have made a difference here.

bompington

shouldbeinbed wrote:

The reason is that the replacement cost of the vehicle is a minor concern to the insurance companies, it is the human cost of paying the compensation and medical fees that they ramp up the premiums for. As far as they were concerned a £350 15 year old banger is far more likely to see him kill or maim passengers or people outside of the vehicle than a 5* safety rated brand new car that is designed protect the occupants and to crumple and scoop rather than smash people to a pulp if it hits them.

My point was that the 3rd party bit was already covered in the £100 quote, it was an extra £400, twice the value of the car, to change that to comprehensive, i.e. me damaging my car.