UK;Should cyclists have to have comprehensive insurance while cycling on public roads?

3,000 lb. car vs. 30 lb. bicycle. No contest - no matter who's at fault. The car wins every time.

Comprehensive coverage protects you when your car has sustained damage that did not result from a collision, such as either a natural or civil disturbance (such as a hail storm, a falling tree, or an act of vandalism). Comprehensive coverage also protects against damage such as a broken window or windshield, as well as any damage sustained if you accidentally hit an animal while driving.

Because these coverages protect you against different types of losses, it’s usually a good idea to include both on your policy.

http://www.allstate.com/insurance-made-simple/Comp...

If you don't screw up while riding and lock your bike properly - you have nothing to worry about.

No.

Only a minority of motorists have comprehensive insurance, let alone cyclists.

The law only requires drivers to be insured against third-party claims for personal injury and death due to a moving vehicle accident. Taking out comprehensive motor insurance is optional.

Very few drivers have policies limited to the legal minimum. Most either have 'third-party' cover which includes cover for causing property damage as well as personal injuries and usually includes parked vehicles as well as moving ones, or 'third party, fire & theft' cover, or sometimes comprehensive cover which includes cover for damage to their own vehicle as well as liabilities to others.

Some cyclists do insure themselves against third-party risks (eg. many cycling clubs, including the Cyclists Touring Club and the London Cycling Campaign, have group policies which cover all their members).

Because cyclists very rarely cause accidents which lead to significant injury to anyone else, the government considered that making insurance similar to that required for drivers compulsory for cyclists would cost much more that it would gain in public benefit (as would requiring it for pedestrians, equestrians, herders, etc).

I'd love to get some insurance for my bike. Unfortunately no one offers it where I live. Anyway, as others have said, I'm not sure what level of damage a bike can do. If a bike dents your car, it probably means the cyclist is either dead, injured so severely that he's not going to be doing anything for a long time, or suing you for reckless driving. And you may be in jail.

highway tax dose no longer exist so drivers ought to pay highway tax too below your common sense. if you're speaking about your tax disk then it truly is motorcar Excise responsibility it truly is in holding with your vehicles emissions so there should be no think about spending 1000's of thousands getting cyclists to pay something that they wont elect to pay besides reason motorcycles do not provide off emissions. Cyclists already pay for roads and so does all of us because it comes from favourite taxation no longer VED. Why hassle dropping funds on someone sitting a idea and sensible try at the same time as if the hit someone they're going to in effortless words damage them and in no way kill them like a motor motorcar. besides vehicles are in effortless words allowed to apply roads below licence so elect to study to share them with horses, pedestrians and cyclists even even if they have not extremely achieved ok at education you.

Why should they?

Mandatory insurance is justified based upon risk to others. Bicyclists do not constitute enough of a risk to others to justify mandatory insurance. The amount of damage that they do to others in collisions tends to be less than most deductibles.

Let's go to your real motivations here: You hate bicyclists because they occasionally cause you a trivial inconvenience and you want to punish them for it. You believe that you are entitled to not have to suffer this incredibly trivial inconvenience. It's time for you to grow up and quit whinging about trivial inconveniences like a 5 year old child.

@lollypoplicker: Mandatory helmet laws for adults have not been shown to reduce bicyclist death rates or even head injury rates. They have, however, been shown to reduce the number of people riding bicycles. That's what has happened in Australia. People who want mandatory helmet usage by bicyclists have never done any serious study of bicycle safety. Most of them don't even ride. They just want to punish bicyclists for existing. That is their only motivation.

many cyclists are covered under home insurance liability section. Cars create large amounts of damage to each other annually, but for bicycles it must be only a tiny fraction of that, come on do you know anyone who had a £3,000 car written off by a bicycle? You must have experienced large car insurance claims in some way.

no

but define :"comprehensive insurance "

in the usa it means 'my car is insured in case a tree falls on it'

wle

Third party insurance as a minimum would be a good idea.

How much damage do you think a bicycle can do.

No only voluntary but it should be compulsory to wear a helmet