Re: More anti-cyclist drivel in the Times

Nigel Cliffe wrote: 
dkahn400 wrote:

Trundler wrote: 

There is also a distinct lack of an appetite for compulsory
third-party insurance, although it appears that cycling club
membership offers this as a benefit.


I think most of the regular contibutors in here would have no problem
with that. Most of us are covered anyway. Third party insurance for
cyclists is cheap as cyclists cause very little injury to third
parties.

I'd have serious objections to compulsory 3rd party insurance. I suspect most cyclists would object once they thought about the consequences (fewer cyclists, costs, enforcement, etc, all for bugger all benefit). 

The benefit of 3rd party to car drivers being what exactly?

The reason there is compulsory 3rd party insurance for motor vehicles is due to the disproportionately large amounts of damage they inflict on other people. 

Per mile travelled, per hour, or in absolute terms?  Evidence?

The original "legal minimum" insurance for motor vehicles only covered 3rd party injuries to people, though recently its been extended to include property. 

When was that?

If compulsory 3rd party is needed for cycling, then its also needed for golf, angling, DIY, walking along the pavement, rollerskating, etc..

Yes, for /everyone/ as it is apparently, elsewhere. If I'm 'damaged' I want compensation even if it wasn't a legal motorist who inflicted the damage.

That many regulars here probably have the cover is irrelevant (I have such cover). We've probably got cover for angling, golf, DIY, walking along the pavement, etc.. all through our household general insurance. But, making household insurance *compulsory* is not acceptable. 

But making car insurance is?  How can you reconcile those two statements?

--
Matt B
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: compulsory insurance for cyclists in the media
    ... If the mystery walking "cyclist" was insured he could claim back from his insurance otherwise he would have to pay it out of his own pocket. ... Mr Relph doesn't seem to have a clue who it was so how is he going to claim on any insurance? ... I have a theory on the latter part of your question which I expressed to the editor in line with my experiences of this type of collision. ... Most cyclists own a car and pay vehicle excise duty. ...
    (uk.rec.cycling)
  • Re: To the cyclist this morning on Upper Ground ~ 9.45am
    ... for third party damge or injury under the same section). ... I thought that many cyclists took out special insurance rather than ...
    (uk.rec.cycling)
  • Re: Fascist cyclists
    ... > - compulsory third-party insurance for all cyclists (to cover injury to ... > cyclists go through red lights or whose cars they scrape as they overtake ... dumb idea comes to fruition and license plates are required. ...
    (uk.transport.london)
  • Re: Indy today
    ... I own a car and I don't pay "road fund licence" because there is no such thing. ... As for insurance, the fact that cyclists don't have to have specific insurance reflects the low risk they pose to other road users. ...
    (uk.rec.cycling)
  • Re: On my head be it if I dont wear a helmet
    ... How do you get to the "conclusion" that I think cyclists don't have licences ... I take it from your reply that you don't have insurance even though ... How long did you spend at the Chapman school of fuckwittery? ...
    (uk.rec.cycling)