​Debate as to whether bicycle insurance should be compulsory

The number of cyclists on the roads is increasing year on year and, with that, so is the number of accidents. As with any accident on the road, whether it involves a pedestrian, a vehicle or a cyclist, insurance is an issue and the debate over whether or not cyclists should be legally obliged to have insurance is a lively one.

So, what are the arguments? Should cyclist insurance be made compulsory or is it a waste of time? What are the pros and cons? Here’s what we think.

Hugh Potter, Partner at PotterReesDolan believes that if the government were to introduce compulsory insurance it would have to be easily affordable. He said:

I have changed my mind over the years mainly through representing those who have been badly injured by cyclists (some other cyclists) who cannot claim any compensation at all because there are no funds available. If we all had insurance, funds would be available.

Jeremy Smith, a personal injury solicitor at PotterReesDolan, disagrees with Hugh's opinion and believes insurance shouldn't be made compulsory. He said:

I want to see cycling encouraged and promoted as an easy, cheap and safe means of transport and leisure activity because the benefits to individuals and society in terms of health and protection of the environment are very great. I’m therefore against anything such as compulsory insurance which would create a barrier to this, particularly when the number of accidents caused by cyclists is very small.

In reply to Jeremy’s comment, Hugh said:

I agree entirely with the sentiment but it cannot be right that even a small number of badly injured individuals have no compensation available. Suppose they cannot work again? Suppose they need but cannot afford rehab that’s not available through the NHS?

Jeremy replied by saying:

I agree that in those particular situations the existence of insurance would make a very big difference to the injured person. However many cyclists will already have such cover through their household insurance policies. I'd certainly be in favour of encouraging cyclists to take out such cover, perhaps by joining organisations such as British Cycling that offer cover as part of their membership, but I’m still against making it compulsory – I think that would be too much of a potential deterrent to people taking up cycling.

Hugh, however, thinks encouraging cyclists to take out insurance is a great idea. He said:

My own insurance cover means that I don’t risk losing my home if I knock over a pedestrian or cyclist on the way home tonight. The trouble is that too many cyclists don’t take it up and that means I have to keep my fingers crossed that if I am badly injured by a cyclist he or she has cover. That doesn't strike me as fair.

I do agree that the perceived cost might be a problem so how about we lobby the government to subsidise premiums so that they are affordable? This should reflect the true commercial cost of risks posed by cyclists and so be substantially less than for cars. Maybe the government could be persuaded to pay all of the premiums on the basis of savings elsewhere – cleaner air better public health and so on? That would be dandy.

Jeremy agrees how protecting cyclists would be beneficial and said:

I do agree that insurance cover for all cyclists would be a really good thing for our own peace of mind and protection as regular cyclists.

Lobbying the government for affordable premiums is a great idea, and I agree there is a good argument that the government should pay because cycling has so many benefits to society. We all want a healthier population and a better environment and getting more people cycling would really help. The government say they’re committed to promoting cycling – let them put their money where their mouth is!

The debate in the PotterReesDolan office continues where both Hugh and Jeremy may have to agree to disagree. Watch this space as we will be posting any updates on the issue.