Standard Responses #4: "Shouldn’t we require bicyclists to carry insurance"

In yesterday's Washington Post, an "analysis"* of WABA's suggestion that DC actually do something to achieve Vision Zero, other than hope real hard that is, took the position that WABA ignored the role of safe cycling in their action plan.

One suggestion the author listed is likely familiar to anyone who reads a bikelash article from time to time.

what about bicycle safety? Shouldn’t we require bicyclists to carry insurance to cover them and potential injuries to pedestrians...?

The answer is a pretty quick and easy no.

Oh, you're still here. OK, so the reason it's a no is that the purpose of insurance is not to improve safety. Sure, sometimes the insurance industry can encourage safety on their own - after all they have a vested interest in keeping accidents from happening - but with drivers that tends to be more in the education and lobbying areas. They don't, for example, generally require drivers to have their cars inspected for safety on a regular basis - not even in places where the government doesn't require it (like DC). And while some have created opt-in tracker programs to monitor drivers, they don't seem to have feedback or speed limiting capabilities that would actually make driving safer.  

The purpose of compulsory auto insurance is to protect victims of car crashes from irresponsible tortfeasors. And by irresponsible, I mean financially irresponsible; as in can't pay for the damage they've done. In the beginning no one had to have insurance. The compulsory insurance laws evolved from financial responsibility laws. The first such law, passed in 1925, required the owner of a vehicle to prove that they could "satisfy any claim for damages, by reason of personal injury, to, or death of, any person, of at least $10,000," but only AFTER they'd been in a crash. Shortly thereafter, Massachusetts passed the first compulsory car insurance law, but it would be more than 30's years before other states started following suit. By the end of the 1970's most states had joined the club. A few, like Virginia, still haven't.

In Virginia, vehicle owners may pay an uninsured motorist fee of $500 a year to the state DMV; however this fee is not insurance.

So, mandatory car insurance was never meant to improve safety. In fact, there are studies out there that indicate that mandatory insurance has a small negative impact on safety due to the moral hazard that insurance represents. To be fair, there are other studies that say it make it safer and still others that throw their hands up. It's like helmets. But the point is, if safety is your goal then insurance is not a stop on the way. 

But maybe it's a good idea anyway?

Probably not, though it does exist. For one thing most cyclists are covered under their auto or home insurance (if they have it). 

Check with your home or renter’s insurance to see if the liability section of your policy covers your “personal activity” away from the home. Since cycling is a “personal activity”  and if it is covered by your home insurance then you do not need to purchase it. 

Interestingly,

If you ride an electric assist bicycle there is no argument, you NEED Cycling Liability coverage. Because an e-cycle has a “motor”, most home insurance policies will exclude coverage and decline any claim relating to your use of the e-cycle.

Ray Thomas, a bicycle lawyer/author doesn't see it as a big need

Liability coverage isn’t as big a deal for bicyclists because there’s not as much damage they can do to others on their bike, Thomas said. Granted, there are exceptions, especially when pedestrians are involved, but for the most part, bicyclists are in more danger than motorists on the road.

If there were a lot of cases of people 1) suffering injuries or property damage caused by cyclists and 2) being unable to get payment because the cyclist couldn't cover it then maybe mandatory insurance would be a good idea. But I just don't see it. 

BTW, I did a few estimates at Velosurance and adding $25,000 in liability insurance for an e-bike added $4 a month to my estimate. If you were wondering what it might cost. 

So, while this proposal does cost cyclists money, with the added benefit of not solving any problems, I think I'll pass. I think this is another of those "The sauce for the goose is now sauce for the gander" things (like this and this, which the OP also proposed).  It seems to appeal to people's sense of fairness and for some people that's enough. Who cares if it actually solves a problem?

*This "analysis" came in the form of a story, followed by a list of suggestions based on nothing, both served with a smattering of incorrect statements. 

Comments

[Crickey]

Another issue is that the cost of a mandatory program (assuming a successful one could be implemented, which is highly doubtful) and the associated regulatory system would be millions of dollars, which would have to either be covered by budget-strapped local government or by user fees, which would in turn depress cycling rates and remove the net positive benefits of cycling to our communities. And for what? A handful of collisions where fault could be placed on the cyclists, likely totaling in the low hundreds of thousands of dollars? Sometimes even if there is a solution, its costs outweigh any conceivable benefit.

[Dewey]

Re: e-bike insurance, Velosurance/Markel offer an e-bike liability policy and balance an injury policy that covers Class 1 and 2 e-bikes but the issue is with the confusing overlapping jurisdictions with e-bike prohibitions. That’s a problem because insurers won’t pay out if the rider is riding somewhere they technically shouldn’t, the trouble is that includes commuting arteries like the Potomac bridge side paths and connecting sections of trails a rider needs to use to safely cross the river to get to the streets on either side. It’s inequitable and DC and Arlington County need to admit they own this problem now they provide fleets of e-bikes as a public transportation utility.