Forum menu
Er, household insurance. I thought I'd mentioned that once or twice - maybe not. If you've not got that I'm quite happy to move you to the other people being insured but you not realising it camp.
If I am self insuring and am at fault I pay upIts so unlikely tho that it can be ignored. a couple of hundred thousand miles cycled over 40 years and I have never damaged a car in a accidental collision that is my fault nor have I ever heard of it happening
This is great logic - I'm going to adopt it! I worked out the other day I've got nearly half a million behind the wheel and never had a single incident. That means I must be 2.5 times less likely to have an accident in a car than you on a bike. I'm off to cancel my insurance as it's clear it'll never happen in the future!
convert - thousands of people a year killed by cars - how many by bikes?
That means I must be 2.5 times less likely to have an accident in a car than you on a bike. I'm off to cancel my insurance as it's clear it'll never happen in the future!
I'm assuming insurance companies have some idea about the relative risk (likelihood times consequence - ins cos tend to call it "exposure"). Hence why they're quite happy to include 3rd party cover for cycling under household policies, but not for driving.
it is not about this TJ it is theoretically possible to damage a car or seriously hurt a pedestrian and it be your fault- I have skidding in snow on a downhill road hitting a stationary car - it was a heap so they were not bothered and they were laughing as they had seen me skidding all the way down - i did well to hold it tbh.
I have never had a crash in a car can i be exempt from car insurance please?
Again the consequences of a car crash are far more likely to be severe but that is not the actual point.
Yes junkyard - but its so low a probability that its a risk I am prepared to accept it and self insure - same as I self insure in loads of other situations such as mountaineering in the EU and so on.
same as I self insure in loads of other situations such as mountaineering in the EU and so on.
you mean you don't have ANY insurance when mountaineering? I can possibly understand you not wanting/needing cycle insurance but for this I cannot understand your logic!
Yes, Insurance is essential if you ride on the road. I didn't realise until I needed it, but luckily my home contents insurance had a little clause that covered me, otherwise I would have been over a grand out of pocket.
What if you hit a dog then veer into a new shiny jag 😉
Dog owner's fault. Automatically and unequivocally.
is it, what always? 😉
just watching the item on BBC about this, so a cyclist gets hit by a van, driver no licence, no insurance, etc.
and as the item says most accidents are the fault of drivers, bit of a shock to hear that on TV, Drivers cause accidents with cyclists!! well i never.
And unsurprisingly the ABI say cyclist should get insurance, what are they going to say? don't bother? FFS
I'm assuming insurance companies have some idea about the relative risk (likelihood times consequence - ins cos tend to call it "exposure"). Hence why they're quite happy to include 3rd party cover for cycling under household policies, but not for driving.
and why buying it as a standalone policy is buttons to buy which makes me wonder why some sack sacks above can make such a fuss about cyclists having it.
haven't the ABI got a scheme where they pay out to an injured 3rd party if a driver who caused it is uninsured
just watching the item on BBC about this
So the ABI advertorial has also made it onto TV? 😯
I need to get onto Nescafe and point out that they're wasting all their money paying for adverts when all they need to do is make a press release on what's clearly a slow news day.
[i]As a road user (in my car, van or bike) I'd like to think that the people who could damage me or my possessions are in a position to compensate me if they do do damage.[/i]
So all pedestrians should also have insurance?
When we lived in Germany the insurance rep said all Germans had 3rd party insurance. The example he used was my son throwing a ball and breaking a window. Declined it then, and the only 3rd party insurance we have is for my wifes' horse.
you mean you don't have ANY insurance when mountaineering? I can possibly understand you not wanting/needing cycle insurance but for this I cannot understand your logic!
Yup - completely unneeded. The only thing you are not covered for under reciprocal arrangements is repatriation. I ain't a huge big hard rock climber tho.
Highclimber - I suggest yo have been taken in by the scarmongering of the insurance industry
gwaelod - Memberhaven't the ABI got a scheme where they pay out to an injured 3rd party if a driver who caused it is uninsured
Indeed thy have
is it, what always?
Yes.
Right, my two penneth...
I have insurance through CTC membership. I have this for the following reasons:
1) I like being a member of the CTC
2) I ride through the City of London at least twice a day, Monday to Friday. As such there is a much higher chance that something might happen one day where I will need insurance. The advantage of the CTC scheme over and above home insurance is that I'd get access to a team of legal people who regularly deal with the needs of cyclists
Anyway, it's a personal choice, so I don't really care what anyone else thinks!
My dad has lived overseas for 15 years and recently moved back to the UK. Now living in London suburbia and fearful of cycling around with all the traffic, he asked a couple of local bobbies whether it was okay to cylcle on the pavement - astonishingly they said it wasn't, but "not in the town center"...whatever that's means (?). So that's it then it's official it's legal to cycle on the roads and the pavements - just make sure you're insured before mowing down the OAP's.
Yup - completely unneeded. The only thing you are not covered for under reciprocal arrangements is repatriation. I ain't a huge big hard rock climber tho.
BMC 3rd pty liability only extends to, well, 3rd parties you injure. it doesn't cover anything you require such as lost equipment, hospital costs and rescue where rescue isn't free.
I haven't been taken in by anything, I am aware of the risks of what I do I want to protect myself and my (limited) money should the worst happen and Insurance I have taken out in the past was completely necessary and most definately not a waste of money in the absence of retrospect.
- reading the top of page 16 it appears the cyclist in the case study should be able to make a claim for all of his losses. You'd think the ABI would know this, it being their scheme...
[img] http://t3.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcQi-awA2oiJcbeDHNhkoWQURPTaAbmBiuPL3eGgiPmTZi0Qi9f8Dw [/img]
Pendantry corner:
TJ: you're not "self insuring", you're choosing not to insure. Might not sound quite as scientific as you'd like, but there we are.
yes
Yeah I know elf, it was supposed to be a funny reference to another thread, but it wasn't.
😀
Highclimber 0 IN Europe the reciprocal arrangements mean you don't pay for healthcare and rescue is free.
You only get the bills that if you have insurance as you will then be taken to private clinics
the only thing you are not covered for is repatriation.
"and rescue is free."
I'm not sure about this bit. On the continent, I've always bought sports insurance to cover the cost of recovering me from the hill (heli flights can be expensive), and for medical repatriation. You are right on about the reciprocal healthcare aspect though.
TandemJeremy - Member
If I am self insuring and am at fault I pay up
TandemJeremy - Member
Many of us have thru our house insurance anyway.
as you own mortgaged property and hence will be insured which statement is true? 😉
Having insurance just makes you a target for people who want to sue you
I didn't know people were targeting householders with mortgages for 3rd party claims 🙄
[b][i]IF[/i][/b] I am self insuring
contents and bricks and mortar insurance are different and its usually contents that carrys 3rd party liability.
there is no point in suing someone with no insurance and no money. Once you have insurance it becomes worth suing you
I'm not going to go into full detail yet but I had an accident a year ago. Very brief lapse in concentration on my part, just a second, nothing more. Bam. I'm in the back of a car.
Twelve months later it's still not resolved.
I wasn't insured.
I was on my bike. It's been immensely stressful and very expensive.
The CRC insurance form was on my desk at home, I never got round to it.
The stress alone has been very unpleasant. Insurance companies are ruthless bastards.
Make sure youre insured.
I'm with TJ on this one, I hate the way we are encouraged to insure such low risk things.
samuri, shouldn't we stand up to the insurance companies because of their awful practices rather than further filling their pockets?
The advantage of the CTC scheme over and above home insurance is that I'd get access to a team of legal people who regularly deal with the needs of cyclists
Don't they just put you onto some no win no fee type lawyers that you can get access to anyway?
Yep, go for it. You stand up to them. See you in court.
That's where I'm heading because I stood up to them. Sounds like a great philosophy to me. I'm already down a lot of money, I have no illusions about where this will end up. I can't afford the lawyers they can so I'll lose.
I'm not being sued or ripped off. The laws are in place to allow people to recover money where liability is proven. You're sharing the road with people who have enormous organisations insuring them. The choice is taken out of the hands of the people driving the cars, this is enterprise level litigation.
You know what? I'm an honest, law abiding citizen which is why when the copper turned up after the accident I gave my details.
If I had the choice again, I'd have grabbed my unrideable bike, shouldered it and legged it. Would have better all round but there you go.
It was my fault though, so I have to pay up. Morals don't help you anything when your bank balance is dropping rapidly. I'd be 32 quid down rather than where I am now if I'd have bought insurance.
Funny this is. I've got insurance for when I'm kitesurfing. At sea. With maybe 2 other kitesurfers and the occasional passing dog walker. But I don't bother on a bike. Never really struck me as to what a daft combination that is.
Oh, it turns out my house insurance covers it. handy.
Dont you have to pay if you get coptered off in europe?
And is IS called "self insuring".
As samurai says its about risk, do you want to go through what hes gone through? (And didnt his house policy cover it?)
my 5 cents....
i have insurance as i have a bike on the CTW scheme which requires teh bike to be insured - as the MTB is on the house insurance the CTW bike is insured seperatly, this is about £6 a month and includes public liablity and 3rd party etc.
if i didnt cycle to work 2/3 times a day i wouldnt have it (or the bike), however i think its worth the £6, not only does it protect others (if i hit them) & theft of the bike, but it also protects me against other road users wether [b]they[/b] are insured or not.
i have insurance as i have a bike on the CTW scheme which requires teh bike to be insured
Why on earth don't you save your £72 a year and cover it on the house insurance? 😯
it also protects me against other road users wether they are insured or not.
Their insurance protects you if they're insured, the MIB if not. Congratulations at preventing the poor insurance companies from going bust.
There are many 'conflicts' of interest going on here, but for me road-use insurance catagories are:
[b]Road Traffic Act[/b]
Damage I do to others, their person, but not their possessions
[b]3rd party[/b]
Damage I do to others and their possessions that is my fault
[b]Comprehensive[/b]
Damage done to my possessions either accidentally by me or by the fault of a 3rd party
AFAIK - only the first is a legality to drive a vehicle on the road, with possessional (sic) damage not needed to be covered - or included as a 'bond' on the Insurance market.
Consequentially, I don't see why cyclists (or pedestrians) should be concerned, as its incredible rare that we cause other people damage.
And as TJ points out, most self-insure (whether the majority of us either understand or consider it I'm unsure) - in that if we screw-up we'll take it on the chin - or accept the consequences.
Why on earth don't you save your £72 a year and cover it on the house insurance?
Depends on your house insurance/where you live/type of house etc etc etc. Some will charge extra per bike. In some cases it might work out cheaper to have separate insurance. For me, like many, the M&S insurance to include all bike makes sense but not for everybody. Impossible to make sweeping statements like yours without knowing all the facts.
Why on earth don't you save your £72 a year and cover it on the house insurance?
Their insurance protects you if they're insured, the MIB if not.
As i said the mtb is covered under the house insurance - it takes up all of the cover allocated to bikes, and more @ £3500 so i already pay an extra £4. i could put the CTW bike under a named item, however it'd cost me more over all and from experiance id rather be protected from all forms of cover on the road which the house insurance would not.
The MTB does not get used for commuting, and if it were to be stolen it'd be form the house - hense covering it under the house insurance.
In addition, my CTW scheme may be a little different to yours - it was a must in the small print to get seperate, dediacted bike insurance (not house insurance).
Also from experiance i'd rather have it this way. It may not work for every one, but it works for me and £6 a month is not much for peice of mind when you work/commute in bristol (bike crime capital of the UK).
Depends on your house insurance/where you live/type of house etc etc etc. Some will charge extra per bike. In some cases it might work out cheaper to have separate insurance. For me, like many, the M&S insurance to include all bike makes sense but not for everybody. Impossible to make sweeping statements like yours without knowing all the facts.
The person I was responding to already has another bike covered under house insurance. In any case, I'd love to see an example of where it's cheaper to insure a bike separately to house insurance - when I looked it was a huge amount more expensive to insure separately, even with the contents insurance I used to have which did charge per bike. I've yet to see a single example of covering bicycles under contents insurance being more expensive. So it is a perfectly reasonable sweeping statement to make.
As i said the mtb is covered under the house insurance - it takes up all of the cover allocated to bikes (£3500).
Strange insurance to cover that way - all of those I've seen cover all items up to a certain value and require you to itemise anything above that rather than a blanket amount for items of a certain type. Who is that with?
i could put it under a named item, however, from experiance id rather be protected from all forms of cover on the road.
All forms of cover in what way? My contents insurance covers my bike for all risk, hence will pay up if I damage it. Contents insurance also provides 3rd party cover as standard (as I'm sure yours will). What other form of insurance do I need?
In addition, my CTW scheme may be a little different to yours - it was a must to get seperate, dediacted bike insurance (not house insurance).
I've seen CTW schemes demanding insurance which is fair enough - I'm not convinced it's even legal for them to demand you have separate insurance which doesn't also cover other things, given the cover provided for a bicycle under contents insurance is just the same as that provided by a stand-alone policy. Does it really specify in the terms that it doesn't count if it's covered under some other blanket policy? Or is it just that it has to be covered whilst in use outside the house (as my policy does)?
£6 a month is not much for peice of mind when you work/commute in bristol (bike crime capital of the UK).
£72 a year is quite a lot for something you could get a lot cheaper (and for double insuring), irrespective of where you live.
And there are policies which limit the number of bikes on it free or limit the value of bikes covered free.
You want an example...me...a few year ago I lived in a house that had a history of flooding and had been burgled in the past. Getting an insurer at all was a nightmare. There was a £350pa difference between the cheapest happy to cover and one that also covered my bikes. The cheapest one was cheapest for the house and contents but the extra to add the bikes was extortionate. £70odd for bike insurance plus the cheapest house and contents policy combined was mathematically the most efficient decision. As I say, you are making sweeping generalisations without knowing all the facts, thinking primarily that everyone is just like you in terms of circumstances.
Insured with the AA -had to phone up and argue the case originaly.
pretty much, you name it, it covers it...Legals, if i get hurt or hurt another, stuff like if i brake a part its insured - silly i know. There is also a RAC/AA style brakedown recovery, for a little extra.All forms of cover in what way?
Does it really specify in the terms that it doesn't count if it's covered under some other blanket policy?
it was an additional bit of small print my comapny added after other employies had bikes stolen on house insurance and had issues with lack of cover - i'm guessing it was problems with paying excess, only replacing for a similar bike (not the exact make etc) or only replacing for 2nd hand value not old for new.
The Admin dept even phoned me to confirm id insured it with a company other than my house insurance and took the details - it is their bike, not mine, after all.