CityCyclingEdinburgh Forum » Debate!
"Compulsory insurance for cyclists, & why it's a bad idea"
(6 posts)-
Posted 14 years ago #
-
Why do people not think about why driver have to have 3rd party cover? Why this attitude that because something applies to drivers (licences, tax, insurance, etc) it has to be applied to all other road user, how long before some suggest that we all have compulsory insurance to walk down the road.
Posted 14 years ago # -
if you've been up the pub and had a few sherbets, jump on your bike then scratch a car in the car park, that would be your fault, I agree you needn't be insured against this, just liable to pay for it, I guess other users of the road feel aggrieved?
Posted 14 years ago # -
CTC members get 3rd party insurance. It can be handy when people use a variation of "don't pay road tax" line. Well yes I do and I have insurance.
Posted 14 years ago # -
The stupid thing is, nobody claims on their insurance for bumps and scrapes anyway, because the excess is often higher than the cost of repair.
Suppose compulsory insurance was legislated - we could all just take out policies with £10,000 excesses, drivers would be no better off.
Posted 14 years ago # -
I actually have a 3rd party damage clause in my household insurance, so I do have 3rd party cover, but I really don't see the need to have compulsory insurance cover. The level of damage caused by cyclist is so low, it not normally something which is beyond our ability to pay for. The reason of compulsory 3rd party insurance for drivers, is because the level of damage which drivers can cause is very much greater, and it is to ensure that drivers can pay for the damage they do.
Posted 14 years ago #
Reply
You must log in to post.
posts
