The Reader: Cyclists should have third-party insurance

Have your say Twitter: @ESTheReader  Email: thereader@standard.co.uk 
Insurance: do cyclists need it?
SOPA Images/LightRocket via Gett
27 June 2019
WEST END FINAL

Get our award-winning daily news email featuring exclusive stories, opinion and expert analysis

I would like to be emailed about offers, event and updates from Evening Standard. Read our privacy notice.

Mr Hazeldean is fortunate to have the support of so many kind funders but it is risky for all cyclists to rely on getting such financial support [“Fund for cyclist who hit woman on phone soars past £50k”, June 24].

Now that we know judges are prepared to find that cyclists have a duty of care, and therefore a financial liability, to other road users, isn’t it time they were required to have third-party insurance just as motorcyclists do?

Obviously, this would require cyclists to have licence plates and be registered, which would be a good thing as it would be easier to trace stolen bikes and return to their owners; as well as allowing cyclists to be subject to traffic regulations by making them easily identifiable by enforcement cameras, members of the public, police etc. And why stop at cyclists? Shouldn’t other road users — like those on scooters and even pedestrians — have insurance as well (the judge did imply the pedestrian in this case was 50 per cent at fault in the collision with the cyclist)?
Janet Moss

EDITOR'S REPLY

Dear Janet

You're right: the logical consequence of requiring cyclists to have third-party insurance would be to insist that pedestrians (or certainly those zombified by their phones) have it too. And what a ludicrous situation that would be.

What’s needed here is a healthy dose of common sense. Mr Hazeldean was hard done by but he should have been riding at a speed that enabled him to stop in time.

I always try to ride defensively through busy parts of London, as ready for pedestrians to step into my path as for vehicles to cut me up and black cabs to perform reckless U-turns.

Some pedestrians and drivers behave idiotically, only occasionally by accident. Ditto for cyclists. But those on two wheels are as likely to come off badly, as did Mr Hazeldean, who was also knocked unconscious. Third-party insurance is not for me but for those who wish it, cover is included with London Cycling Campaign membership.

Ross Lydall, City Hall Editor

Peaceful protests are not a threat

ON TUESDAY’S letters page Graham Cornwell stated that Mark Field’s violent treatment of a peaceful female protester was justifiable because intruders on private premises get what they deserve [“Ejecting protester was not ‘abuse’”, June 25].

I can understand the use of force against an intruder by someone who genuinely was in fear for their safety or that of their property. But I can hardly equate that situation with a peaceful protest against public figures by a female protester at a well-attended function.

The people who defend Mark Field in the name of law and order would do well to look at the many autocracies now in power around the world and remember that some of the things differentiating Britain include a commitment to tolerance, peaceful protest and gender equality. Our interests are hardly best served or promoted by one of the most senior representatives of our country losing his temper and wrestling a female protester out of the room.
Anna Boyd

It takes all talents to run a country

IN MY experience our ruling establishment is dominated by humanities graduates [“Spare a thought for the humble sociologists”, June 25]. In an age of super-specialisation, having a country run by generalists results in many a flawed policy. I’m a huge supporter of the relevance and study of philosophy, anthropology and any mind-expanding subject. But having equality between these and engineers (who dominate in China), scientists, psychologists, doctors and so on in decision making is essential.

There is no need to defend humanities graduates — they are vital. Just make space for the rest of us and we’ll have better government.
Ed Straw

Uber drivers have unfair advantage

IN ANSWER to Dave Degen’s question [“Uber leads black cabs on clean air”, June 24], Uber is better able to invest in electric vehicles than hackney carriages because its drivers have a far wider range of electric vehicles to choose from than the single one available to black-cab drivers. However, the infrastructure is not yet in place to support more rapid charging points for these vehicles. Uber is underwritten by outside investment to the detriment of the taxi trade. I speak as a taxi driver of 35 years.
Geoffrey Crane

Create a FREE account to continue reading

eros

Registration is a free and easy way to support our journalism.

Join our community where you can: comment on stories; sign up to newsletters; enter competitions and access content on our app.

Your email address

Must be at least 6 characters, include an upper and lower case character and a number

You must be at least 18 years old to create an account

* Required fields

Already have an account? SIGN IN

By clicking Create Account you confirm that your data has been entered correctly and you have read and agree to our Terms of use , Cookie policy and Privacy policy .

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.

Thank you for registering

Please refresh the page or navigate to another page on the site to be automatically logged in