Should cyclists be forced to have insurance?

The push for cyclist insurance.

In June 2023, the Italian Government sought to make changes to road safety laws which would require cyclists to wear helmets, carry number plates and have liability insurance. To date, these laws have not been implemented, however many in the UK believe that cyclists should have insurance. A YouGov survey of 1,763 UK adults revealed that 64% believed that cyclists should be required to have insurance against accidents.

A reflection of anti-cyclist sentiment.

This is a worryingly high figure when looked at in isolation, but when considered against a wider picture of 73% of drivers wanting cyclists forced to wear high vis and new laws recently brought in for causing death by dangerous, careless or inconsiderate cycling, then perhaps those who argue for the requirement for cyclists to have insurance reflects the general “anti-cyclist” attitude many road users have, as opposed to a genuine concern to insure oneself against risk.

Often forgotten in the raging ‘them vs us’, ‘cyclist vs motorist’ debate is the “why”. “Why should cyclists have insurance against accidents?” If you were to ask this question to one of those 64% in the YouGov poll, they might speak of the damage a cyclist could cause to a car, or to a pedestrian. However, this is where the argument for cycle liability insurance falls down.

Fundamental flaw in the argument for cycle insurance.

On a fundamental level, insurance is mitigation against risk, risk of harm occurring. The risk that injury or damage could occur and the harm being the outcome of any failure to mitigate against that risk, be it injury or death. In my view, when a cyclist is involved in a collision with a vehicle, neither the risk nor potential to cause harm are present for the cyclist.

Cyclists vs. motorists.

The average male in the UK weighs 85kg. Add to that the weight of his bicycle – another 10kg. That’s 95kg of mass moving through a city centre at no more than 15mph. The average kerb weight of a new car in the UK is 1,947kg. Add the occupant – you’ve now got a mechanically propelled killing machine capable of 0 – 60mph in less than 8 seconds that weighs more than 2,000kg. If the cyclist and the car collide, you don’t need to be a physicist to explain who the harm is going to occur to or who needs to mitigate against the risk of causing that harm.

Enforcement and Regulation.

The other difficulty is enforcement and regulation. Where does a Government draw the line as to who requires insurance to ride their bicycle on the road and who doesn’t? Do the children who are cycling to school need liability insurance? Does the mountain biker using the road to access a forest require insurance? Or will we only require those cyclists who choose to clad tight fitting, speed enhancing, figure hugging lyrca to have insurance?

Once you’ve cleared the hurdle of which type of cyclist you are going to discriminate against, any Government introducing cycle liability insurance is going to have to consider how to enforce such measures. Will cyclists need little number plates hanging from their saddles? Will the Police chase down and pull over errant cyclists who don’t comply with the insurance requirements? When you really think about the “why” and the “how”, the whole argument for cycle insurance becomes a total nonsense.

Why Common Sense Must Prevail.

Often proposals of this nature have nothing to do with road safety and more to do with a political agenda. I cannot foresee any UK Government ever introducing such measures because any perceived benefit is always going to be hugely overshadowed by the obvious and clear drawbacks of requiring insurance and so hopefully common sense will prevail.

Thomas Mitchell – Partner