You don't need to be an 'investor' to invest in Singletrack: 6 days left: 95% of target - Find out more
So, have we done this one ?
[url= http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-15892074 ]BBC Link Cyclists urged to get insurance[/url]
So I do have insurance through CTC but only after too many left turning idiots on my commute. I don't think it should be compulsory though, sad state of affairs where kids can't just go out on their bike etc etc.
This stat surprised me though....
"Some 230 cyclists a month are killed or seriously injured on the roads so there is a good chance you are going to be off work for weeks, if not months, so some sort of insurance to cover you for loss of income makes sense."
What pish - the vat majority of those will have been knocked off by car drivers.
... by the Association of British Insurers
+1 for CTC membership, if only to add weight to their campaigning and the insurance.
Cyclists urged to get haircuts by the Association of British Hairdressers...
Transparent attempt to drum up business, isn't it, hmm?
230 just sounds so high to me....
It is a very skewed article. Man gets knocked off by bike uninsured illegal motorist pulling out on him and the moral is get insured for the small percentage of cases where the cyclist may be at fault....
Theres insurance for everything these days- whats next? Underpants fully comp deals incase your skids wont come out in the wash?
Fercrissakes- most of them arent worth the paper their printed on. Just another way of stealthily wrestling our hard earned off us!
I have car insurance, but thats required by law.....
i'd definitely consider joining the ctc (if i had any money spare) but insurance companies,they can $£"% off 😡
Membership of most formal clubs or organisations includes 3rd party liability insurance doesn't it?
Perhaps someone else can tell us if those policies are ever claimed upon.
A small levy on all bike sales would be the most manageable solution although probably not the most popular.
How do you legislate against the kind of chav who 'borrows' his Mum's bike then rides round blind corners on the pavement without lights?
it's only a recommendation. I was involved in an accident about a year ago, was glad I had BC membership that included insurance. Made things a lot easier.
don't get worked up about it. It's a recommendation, the same as 'insulate your loft' or 'carry a blanket in your car in winter'.
Isn't there a grain of truth? The human story (Pepe) lost income, and all the stress that causes, during recovery from his injuries. Two pals at work have had serious accidents when cycling to work; 10 months later, one is still only working 15hrs a week because his brain injury was that severe. They were fortunate that our firm has very good employee insurance which protected most of their income. But not everyone is so fortunate.
Tell us about the CTC cover?
If you hit a car / pedestrian and it was your fault, you'd be glad of CTC insurance (or similar).
It may be an advertorial article, but there is sense in covering yourself. Ding the panel of an expensive car and it could cost you a lot and that's just a minor accident. The alternative is to ride off which would make you no better than an unisured driver doing a hit and run.
If you hit a walker on a cheeky trail it'd be worse. I know these things are rare, but it makes sense to cover yourself and have responsibility toward the 3rd party you injure or damage property of. I'll probably get grief for being so pro-insurance on here but to me it makes sense. CTC membership is cheap really when you look at the insurance benefits, plus they do more work supporting MTB causes now too.
Would CTC cover you hitting someone on a cheeky trail? I would expect any insurer to simply argue that its an uninsured activity because you shouldn't have been doing it in the first place. genuine question.
Have I understood this correctly - they're suggesting that cyclists need to get insurance to cover themselves for being hit by drivers who don't have any? 🙄
I'm pleased to see that household insurance does get a mention - even if they do try to play it down by implicating that it doesn't provide 3rd party cover (when in the vast majority of cases it does). Does anybody know how to contact Tom Bognanowicz, as I'm extremely disappointed by his comments in that article, and the support they give to the ABI advertorial.
Just to point out again as despite it being mentioned in the article, most on this thread still seem to have missed it - the vast majority of cyclists already have 3rd party insurance through their household insurance. How many of those advocating CTC (of BCF) insurance and saying how useful it was for them don't actually have household insurance which already provides this cover?
...feedback sent to BBC regarding them publishing advertorials.
Oh, and as far as I can make out, CTC insurance doesn't cover you for personal injury or income protection of the sort that chap in the article would have needed. Does any of the specialist cycle insurance the ABI is trying to sell actually cover you for this?
Why would you need seperate insurance for that as there's the MIB and a host of no win no fee types who'd happily take the case.
Given the amount of 'stolen' threads on here I'd rather point my cash towards decent contents insurance?
Just to point out again as despite it being mentioned in the article, most on this thread still seem to have missed it - the vast majority of cyclists already have 3rd party insurance through their household ... Oh, and as far as I can make out, CTC insurance doesn't cover you for personal injury or income protection of the sort that chap in the article would have needed.
Thanks, Aracer, for pointing this out. Also some household insurance will provide legal cover (or it's an extra at a small cost) to pursue costs from a 3rd party that is at fault.
Also some household insurance will provide legal cover (or it's an extra at a small cost) to pursue costs from a 3rd party that is at fault.
Indeed - though companies like www.bikeline.co.uk will take on cases to pursue costs from other parties who are at fault on a no-win-no-fee basis even if you don't have that (having done it both ways, I'd argue that having legal cover insurance actually makes it more complicated).
The ABI are promoting insurance, it's what they do. They're saying "have you thought of this? could happen! not impossible! if you think it might happen to you, and you'd find it difficult to pay for the consequences, there are some companies who'll pay for them, in a return for a premium."
What's wrong with that?
It's just risk transfer.
For anything that might happen with a possible financial loss, (from loss of earnings and medical bills, to extra expense from having twins rather than a single child) you've got an idea of the chances, and so have the insurance companies.
They put a price on it, for you, for where you are, for what you're doing, and it's up to you whether you think it's worth it to lay the risk off to them. In order to properly define the terms of the bet, there's quite a lot of text to say what's in, and what isn't. You should read it, because you're paying a lot of money for it. That's it.
I could have paid for my bike twice over and more if I'd bought specialist bike insurance for as long as I've had it. I don't buy it. I actually don't have contents insurance either, because I don't have a great deal of stuff, and I think the premiums for policies which have decent T&C's are overblown for my property.
When I buy travel insurance, I spend what I need to to get the cover I need, because the consequences could be pretty effing pricey. (medical bill for helicopter rescue from unclimbed peaks in Greenland for example).
Pay your money, take your choice. But read the T&Cs beforehand!
Complaint registered. For those that wish to do so also, the link is here: http://news.bbc.co.uk/newswatch/ukfs/hi/newsid_3950000/newsid_3955200/3955223.stm
What an absolutely ludicrous 'news' item. This first sentence alone:
Not having a comprehensive insurance policy could prove costly, cyclists have been warned by the Association of British Insurers (ABI).
Furthermore, someone has already pointed out above that the article appears to suggest that cyclists should insure themselves against motorist's who don't, despite the fact that insurance for a motor vehicle is compulsory and, of course, for a bicycle is not. This sums up why in my eyes the BBC is failing.
What's wrong with that?
What's wrong with that is that it appears to be a BBC news article! Oh, and said "news" article is being deliberately misleading about the cover cyclists likely already have and the advantages of buying specialist insurance (I'm dubious that the cover ABI appear to be trying to sell would provide cover for the example they're using).
"news" - fair enough.
They said something - is it newsworthy? dunno.
Nescafe said "we make really good coffee" - is that news?
Complaint also now sent to LCC regarding comments attributed to Tom Bogdanowicz.
Would CTC cover you hitting someone on a cheeky trail? I would expect any insurer to simply argue that its an uninsured activity because you shouldn't have been doing it in the first place. genuine question.
Good point, my assumption, I'd need to ask them. But one thing the CTC offers that some other insurance may not is a very pro-cyclist view and experience in cycling insurance / liability etc - I imagine you'd get better advice there if nothing else.
If you drive up a one-way st the wrong way or were on a private road that you didn't have automatic r.o.w on and hit someone you'd be insured if you had full comp driver cover, I think? You shouldn't have been there? Maybe you can claim you thought you were on a bridleway?
Anyway. I see having some liability cover as a good thing, part of the benefit of CTC membership.
I see from the other thread it's debated whether you need it.